ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Working Families (Benefits)

Chi Onwurah: What assessment his Department has made of the effects on working families of recent changes to the level of benefits.

Steve Webb: Since the financial crash of 2008, while average wages have risen by around 10%, working age benefits have risen by around 20%—a sign of our commitment to those who are most vulnerable, despite the black hole in the public finances that we inherited.

Chi Onwurah: In their relentless demonisation of those on benefits, this Government forget to say that only 3% of welfare spending goes on benefits to the unemployed, and a half of all those in poverty are in working households. In the north-east, working people are £1,800 worse off per year since this Government came to power, and a quarter of a million of them do not even get the living wage. Now the Minister decides to freeze working tax credits. Why is he balancing the books on the backs of the working people?

Steve Webb: It is difficult to know which of those dubious assertions to choose from that question. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady asks which one is dubious. She says that 3% of what she calls welfare spending goes to the unemployed—[Interruption]—goes on benefits to the unemployed, so she presumably counts state pensions as welfare spending. I do not.

Andrew Bridgen: I welcome the news that over the last 12 months we have seen the largest annual fall in unemployment since records began. Does the Minister share my view that the best way out of poverty is through sustainable employment and a regular pay packet—something enjoyed by an extra 847 of my constituents since January 2013?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right. We know that the risk of a child, for example, being in poverty is three times as great if they are in a workless household
	rather than a working household. We have almost become blasé about new record falls in unemployment month after month. That is the key to our drive to tackle poverty.

Frank Field: I ask the Minister this week to support the living wage campaign in his own Department. Can he tell the House how many contracted-out workers outside London in his Department have yet to receive the living wage?

Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman deserves great credit for his promotion of the living wage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State inherited a situation in which some of the Department’s employees were not receiving the living wage. Our Department has committed to it, and we have had that dialogue with our subcontractors as well.

Guy Opperman: I also welcome the rise in the living wage announced today. The Minister will be aware that jobseeker’s allowance claimant numbers are falling across the board in every single constituency in the north-east, and by 31% in my Hexham constituency over the last year. Does he agree with me that coming off JSA and into employment is surely the way forward?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is entirely welcome that we are ensuring not only that more people get into work, but that work pays through the universal credit reform, which this coalition Government are proud to have introduced.

Helen Jones: According to the Government’s own figures, 20% of working people in my constituency earn less than the living wage, yet they will lose hundreds of pounds a year through this Government’s freeze in working tax credit. How does that possibly reward people who want to work, and how can the Minister justify that when the Government give tax cuts to the wealthy?

Steve Webb: The largest number of people who have benefited most from tax cuts during this Government are those who are in work and paying income tax. Under this Government, a typical basic rate taxpayer is £800 a year better off in cash terms as a result of our changes to the personal income tax allowance, and over 3.2 million individuals will have been taken out of income tax altogether.

Andrew Jones: Harrogate borough is part of the roll-out of universal credit, and the feedback from jobseekers and employers has been universally positive. Will the Minister explain a bit more about the benefits to the UK economy as a whole when this roll-out is completed?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right that the early indications from those receiving universal credit have been positive, in line with the expectations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are designing the system to be simpler for people and to make sure that when they take work, work pays. Already those on the front line who are working with unemployed people are welcoming the new freedoms universal credit gives them to support people back to work.

Welfare Reforms (Economy)

David Davies: What assessment he has made of the effect of his welfare reforms on the economy.

Iain Duncan Smith: Our reforms are having a very positive impact on the economy, as my hon. Friend has seen. The deficit is down by more than a third, and we are at a record level of employment. Recent statistics have shown that both the number and rate of workless households is at a record low, too—the lowest since 1996.

David Davies: May I commend my right hon. Friend on these reforms, which as he said have led to record falls in unemployment while also cutting the deficit? Does he agree with me that all of this is threatened by the policies suggested by Labour Members, who caused the financial chaos that we have had to deal with in the first place?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth highlighting one particularly revealing set of figures. For workless households, both the number and the rate are at record lows: 3.3 million and 15.9% are the lowest since ’96. Children in workless households number 1.5 million, at a rate of 12.7%—again, the lowest on record. Under Labour, some 2 million children lived in workless households. That is now collapsing, thanks to the work we are doing. Labour’s plans would only return us to the bad old days.

John Healey: Why are jobcentre staff being told to say to people “We are not here to help you to find work; we are simply here to check that you do it for yourself”?

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not believe that that is correct. I have the highest respect for the people who man jobcentres all over the country, and who do a remarkable job in helping many of those who have fallen out of work to get back into it. Jobcentre staff now tell people that their own job is to help them to find and take work, but that they themselves have a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to find work and take it. Their job is a combination of helping people and ensuring that they perform their task of seeking work and taking it. I am sure that, actually, the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the right thing to do.

Philip Hollobone: What assessment has my right hon. Friend undertaken of economies similar to ours that have ducked the challenge of welfare reform, and of how their economic performance compares with ours?

Iain Duncan Smith: We do not need to go very far to see the country that the Opposition held up as the paragon of virtue in the European Union. It is, of course, France. I should point out that the French pursued the policies that the present Opposition think are right for the British economy. Adult unemployment in France is at record, scorchingly high levels, and youth unemployment is far higher than it has ever been in this country, while it is falling here.

Douglas Carswell: As my right hon. Friend will know, the benefit cap is encouraging some people to move out of London, where rents are high, to areas such as Clacton and Thanet. Does he agree that local councils should be able to act to discourage benefit migration of that kind?

Iain Duncan Smith: There has been very little movement of more than about five miles from people’s existing homes as a result of the benefit cap. Most people have settled, and many—two thirds—have either gone back to work or found alternative employment. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there is something called the discretionary housing payment, and his local council, like any other, can make decisions about how it modifies the process. It is up to councils to do that, and we leave it with them.

Stephen Timms: The flagship of welfare reform was supposed to be universal credit. The Secretary of State’s former adviser told Radio 4 last week that the Secretary of State had known that the project was going badly wrong since May 2012, but he continued to tell the House that it was “exactly on track”. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee expects IT write-offs to exceed half a billion pounds after the election. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s estimate?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman has got his facts completely wrong. The reality is that, as was announced only a few weeks ago, universal credit is not only doing well, but is to be rolled out nationally. The right hon. Gentleman may be smiling because he has the idea that Labour might somehow get into government, and might inherit a success. I can tell him that Labour will not get into government, but universal credit will get more people back to work. It is already the case that it will give the economy net benefits of more than £30 billion, and there will be direct benefits of some £9 billion a year as a direct result of the roll-out that we are planning successfully.

Stephen Timms: According to page 34 of the “21st Century Welfare” Green Paper,
	“The IT changes that would be necessary to deliver”
	universal credit
	“would not constitute a major IT project.”
	Is not the problem—as I pointed out to him at the time—that the Secretary of State failed to grasp the scale of the undertaking at the outset, and that hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted as a result?

Iain Duncan Smith: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. No money has been wasted. The roll-out means that, with all the work that we are doing, the vast majority is reusable through the digital system. I should be happy to invite him into my office to discuss the issue; the door has always been open to him.
	Let me also say this, however. I wish that the Opposition would stop trying to play silly games and would recognise that this benefit, which is now being rolled out successfully and whose national roll-out has been announced, will be a massive benefit for those who are seeking work and those who are in work. It is time that the Opposition sat down with jobseekers and those who run the jobcentres,
	and got their story straight. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) spent about half an hour in a jobcentre, and then disappeared without talking to anyone there.

Child Poverty

Rushanara Ali: If his Department will make an assessment of the potential effect on child poverty of a two-year freeze in benefits.

Iain Duncan Smith: Under this Government, the number of children in relative poverty has fallen by 300,000. The Government have no plans to make any further assessment of this kind. Such an assessment would only be provided in reference to Government policy.

Rushanara Ali: The End Child Poverty coalition recently found that almost half of all children in my constituency now live in poverty. Of the 2.6 million children living in poverty across the UK, two thirds rely on tax credits and in-work benefits. How does the Minister square that with the recent changes to benefits, which are going to make matters worse, and is he today redefining poverty?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am interested in the hon. Lady’s question because in the report Alan Milburn brought out as part of his commission he recommended that we should
	“supplement the existing child poverty targets with new measures to give a more rounded picture of those in poverty”,
	and I agree with that. That is what we have set out to do. We took a consultation, and we are now considering that consultation and we will be bringing forward recommendations.
	May I just say to the hon. Lady, however, that many of the forecasts about child poverty proved to be wrong? Child poverty has actually fallen, and, interestingly, I notice that the figures for her area show that Tower Hamlets has seen the largest fall of any local authority in England, down 7.1%, and down 9.6% since 2010 for those on tax credits and below the poverty line.

Tony Baldry: I am sure that when I voted for the welfare cap I was surrounded in the Division Lobby by large numbers of Labour Members of Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one can only have an effective welfare cap, and cap the welfare bill, if benefits do not rise faster than wages?

Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and he is approaching this from the logical perspective, which is that we have a responsibility to make sure that the economy is in balance, that we get the deficit down and that we are able to afford what we want to do to support the most vulnerable. What the Opposition fail to recognise time and again is that the economy that they left in a totally wrecked position has got to be sorted out; we cannot just go spending what we do not earn.

Peter Hain: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that children are also being pushed into poverty because his Department is not pursuing
	errant non-resident fathers vigorously enough? As he knows, my constituent Lisa Jones, a hard-working single mother, has been totally frustrated by the lackadaisical attitude of the Child Support Agency in tracking down the father, despite knowing his mother’s address, when he owes £23,000 and she has been struggling on tax credits and housing benefits to bring up a teenage boy while the father takes exotic holidays and avoids court orders. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop his weasel-worded replies to me and sort this matter out now?

Iain Duncan Smith: I completely agree that in the right hon. Gentleman’s individual case, which I do know about and I recognise, that money should go to the parent with care. We fully agree with that and the CSA, part of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, is bearing down to try and get the details of this individual. As he knows, this case is a little complicated because the individual moves time and again before the agencies can get hold of him, but I have to say that I have already intervened by talking to them about this, and I promise the right hon. Gentleman this, and ask him to pass this on to his constituent: I personally will take direct interest in this because it is outrageous that this individual gets away with what he is doing. I have told the CMEC that it must bear down on these cases. The reforms we are bringing in will do just that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can reassure his constituent that we will sort this out.

Mr Speaker: There will be a further report to the House on the matter in due course. I am quite confident of that.

Pauline Latham: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in spite of what Opposition Members say, relative child poverty has fallen by 300,000 under this Government since 2010?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes, and it is something the Opposition do not really want to talk about. The forecast was that it would rise. In fact, it has come down. It is also important to recognise that nearly 400,000 fewer children now live in workless households and that the proportion of children on free school meals getting five good GCSEs is up from 31% under the last Government to 38% as of a year ago.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Bury North)

David Nuttall: How many people are claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Bury North constituency.

Esther McVey: The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Bury North was 1,304 in September, a fall of more than 500 people since 2010.

David Nuttall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that this fall in unemployment has not happened by accident? It has only happened because this Government have cut tax and red tape on businesses, giving them the confidence to grow and take on new employees?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is quite right. The latest reports from the British Chambers of Commerce show that businesses are feeling more confident and are taking on more people. In the north-west, an additional 109,000 people are in work this year. He knows only too well how important it is to get a job that can lead to career progression. He is a working-class Tory who got himself into a job, did a correspondence course in law and then set up his own legal practice. We want those opportunities for everyone.

Employment and Support Allowance

Sheila Gilmore: What change there has been in the number of people claiming employment and support allowance over the last two years.

Mark Harper: Based on the latest published national statistics, as at February 2014 there were 2.46 million people on employment and support allowance and incapacity benefits, a fall of 98,000 from February 2012.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for his reply. Since the incapacity benefits migration started, 250,000 IB claimants have been found fit for work, yet he is now telling us that the total number has fallen by only about 90,000. That might explain why the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that spending on incapacity benefit alone will rise by £3 billion more than the Government expected in 2010. Is it not time that the Minister and his colleagues realised that, despite all the rhetoric, many people are not fit for work and that the necessary support is not there for those who do want to work?

Mark Harper: I would point out to the hon. Lady that we have had some problems with the work capability assessment—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Before Opposition Members jeer, they should remember that this has happened under the provider that the previous Government appointed. We have taken action to sort the problems out, and Atos has agreed to exit from its contract. From 1 March next year, the new provider that I appointed last week, Maximus, will be taking over and will do a better job.

Steven Baker: I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a new provider. The Minister has just confirmed that it was the previous Government who appointed Atos. Can he explain how the new provision will be materially different from the outgoing arrangements?

Mark Harper: Yes, I can. I have taken a close interest in the contracting process, and we have learned from the previous experience. We are confident, given the bid that Maximus put together and the successful contracts that it has operated in Australia, Canada and the United States of America, that it will be able to deliver the assessments competently over the next three years.

Kate Green: Last week, the BBC reported that Ministers were considering cutting employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group—that is, those who have
	been assessed as being too severely disabled or too ill to be ready to work. I was grateful for the Minister’s letter, which I received this morning, assuring me that that did not reflect Government policy. I am sure he will want to place that on record in the Chamber now. However, Ministers are in trouble with employment and support allowance. Over the course of this Parliament, it is likely to have a cumulative cost of £8 billion more than they had planned. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also sounded the alarm, saying that
	“spending would remain higher…because of delays to the work capability assessment programme”,
	which puts the Government’s own annually managed expenditure cap at risk. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no cut, now or in the future, to the benefits on which disabled people rely, in order to pay for the Government’s policy failures?

Mark Harper: I am glad that the hon. Lady has referred to the letter I sent her, because it confirms that the BBC report
	“does not reflect Government policy.”
	It also makes the point that we have seen
	“a fall in out of work benefit numbers of 832,000 since 2010—the total is now below 4 million, the lowest figure since 1990”,
	that incapacity benefit numbers have fallen by 98,000, and that the spend on incapacity benefits has also fallen by £1 billion in real terms between 2009-10 and 2013-14.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for his comment that the mooted cut was not Government policy. Can he reassure me and others that it will not become Government policy and that he will not consider making cuts in that area? People who are unwell or disabled often face additional costs to those faced by everyone else.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman talks about disabled people having higher costs; he is obviously talking about the personal independence payment, which is the help we give to people to help them to stay or become independent. The BBC report was talking about employment and support allowance, which is an out-of-work benefit.

Employment (Young People)

Andrew Stephenson: What support his Department has provided for young people seeking employment.

Esther McVey: In the past 12 months, youth unemployment has fallen by a record-breaking 253,000. This Government have developed an array of support for young people including: work experience, sector-based work academies, traineeships, the Work programme and increasing apprenticeship numbers.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Youth unemployment in my constituency has halved since 2012. I recently visited my local Asda in Colne to see the work it is doing with local jobcentres. What more can my right hon. Friend offer to end youth unemployment in Pendle?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is doing a lot locally to help people into work. He has had three job fairs so far, and is soon to have a fourth. It is by working with business, as he is doing in his constituency and we are doing nationally, that we have businesses and trade associations engaged in running programmes such as movement to work and feeding Britain’s future. All such initiatives are giving young people opportunities to move into work. We are not complacent, and recognise that there is more we can do. We are looking to create an extra 3 million apprenticeships in the next Parliament to ensure that we have full employment for young people.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister sounds so plausible and she has oh so many skills learned in the television trade, but she should pick up the Local Government Association report that said that so many young people in this country are being badly served and that there will be 2 million of them unemployed or under-employed in the next few years because the model that we have for helping young people is not fit for purpose and that after four and a half years she has done very little about it.

Esther McVey: It would have been better had the hon. Gentleman stopped after his first sentence. Not only am I plausible—I was giving the true statistics. Let us be honest: it was the Opposition who said that unemployment would be up by a million at this stage. How wrong they were. [Interruption.] We have unemployment up by 2 million. [Interruption.] Sorry, the Opposition said that it would be down by a million. Employment levels are at a record high: more than 30.7 million people are now in work, putting the figures on a par with pre-recession rates.

Barry Sheerman: indicated dissent.

Esther McVey: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but rather than living on planet fantasy I ask him to look at the facts.

Nigel Evans: Youth unemployment in the Ribble Valley is relatively low. One of our great facilities, the jobcentre in Clitheroe, is currently under review and the suggestion is that it should close. Does the Minister accept that young people in rural areas have to travel large distances to get to a jobcentre? As these jobcentres are important, they should not be told to get on a bus to Blackburn.

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right that jobcentres are important. The question is how we best support jobcentres and claimants. Can young people in rural areas make their claim on the phone or online, and can we align various other organisations so that they can come together and help support people in a fully rounded way? Obviously, what we are doing is right, because, as he says, in his area employment is up and unemployment is down.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister budgeted for 160,000 young people to complete the Youth Contract wage incentive payments. When the Department pulled the plug on that scheme, fewer than
	10,000 young people had actually completed the 26 weeks on the programme. Will she tell the House what went wrong?

Esther McVey: What I will do is tell the House what went right, as that is what people want to know. We have a record number of young people in work. We had a £1 billion Youth Contract, within which was an array of different opportunities—work experience, sector-based work academies and wage incentives. Working with businesses, we found that work experience, sector-based work academies and apprenticeships were the things that they want, and they are the ones offering the jobs. We have seen 40,000 young people—not 10,000 young people—start in that way. We have redeployed the money from the Youth Contract to areas where it will be most effective. The situation is far from what the hon. Gentleman outlined, as what we are doing is working.

Personal Independence Payments

Cathy Jamieson: What the average waiting time is for an assessment for personal independence payment.

Lilian Greenwood: What the average waiting time is for an assessment for personal independence payment.

Mark Harper: When I was asked this at the last departmental questions, I said that the straightforward answer was that PIP claimants were having to wait too long and we are putting that right. I am pleased to say that since I answered that question we have made considerable progress; both the assessment providers have significantly increased the number of claims they are processing. That is good, and we will meet the Secretary of State’s commitment that nobody would be waiting 16 weeks by the end of the year. On the statistics, we will pre-announce the publication in due course, in line with the UK Statistics Authority code of practice.

Mr Speaker: Let us speed up, as these answers are taking too long.

Cathy Jamieson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Minister for that answer, but I would like him to make something absolutely clear. If one of my constituents phones up the Department today to make a PIP claim, will that be dealt with within 16 weeks or will they hear what people are often hearing, which is that it could take up to six months?

Mark Harper: Nobody will be waiting longer than 16 weeks by the end of the year. One area where we are performing better is Scotland; the contract Atos runs in Scotland has some of the best performance we are seeing, so I hope that if someone were to make that claim now they would get a decision much more quickly than the hon. Lady might expect.

Lilian Greenwood: My constituent Ian Want has severely painful osteoporosis. Having already waited three years for a decision on his claim for disability living allowance,
	he applied for PIP. Capita rang him at 10.30 pm on a Wednesday to tell him that his medical assessment appointment was at 8.10 the following morning— 50 miles away, in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Minister apologise to Ian and to the many other disabled people who are being let down by his Department?

Mark Harper: I do not know the specific circumstances of that case. If what the hon. Lady describes is the case, it is clearly not acceptable to expect somebody to travel at such short notice and I will look into the matter for her. As I said, however, both the assessment providers are making considerable progress in the number of assessments they are making and communicating to the Department, and departmental decision makers are making considerable progress in making decisions.

Anne McIntosh: While people are awaiting the assessment for PIP, what special help is given to those with mental health conditions who want to get into the workplace to assist them to do so?

Mark Harper: We are looking at a number of options to help people. My hon. Friend will be aware that the national health service has made some announcements about the extra help it will be putting in place for people with mental health conditions from April—this will be a significant improvement. We are also running some pilots, examining access to psychological therapies and linking those up with support in getting into work. So she will see that more support is available for those with mental health problems, both now and going forward.

Nigel Mills: Will the Minister ensure that the welcome progress on PIP is also reflected in a legacy on DLA claims, because under-16s, for whom these claims still have to be made, are also experiencing long delays?

Mark Harper: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have had one or two examples of that brought to my attention, and I have asked officials to brief me on the DLA performance for children. I will come back to him in writing when I have something further to tell him.

Personal Independence Payments

Duncan Hames: When he plans to begin the assessment of existing recipients of disability living allowance for eligibility for personal independence payment.

Mark Harper: We have consistently said that we would take a controlled approach to introducing PIP, continuously learning lessons as we went along. That is why we have introduced reassessments of existing disability living allowance claimants in a phased way, beginning from last October.

Duncan Hames: Is it indeed quite an inheritance that the new Minister has on his plate in this area. In June, I told his predecessor about a constituent of mine who had received arrears of more than £5,000, having waited 10 months for his PIP assessment. Given the difficulties we have heard about this afternoon, will he consider the
	time frame for the transfer of existing DLA recipients to PIP and waiting until such a time as his Department is able to give them a timely decision about their entitlement?

Mark Harper: I agree with what my hon. Friend says; we are conducting the further natural reassessment roll-out only in those areas where I am confident we have the capacity to undertake the claims in a timely way. We are doing it in a carefully controlled way. The majority of DLA claimants will not be invited to claim PIP until 2015 onwards under a programme of managed reassessment.

Frank Roy: Thousands and thousands of DLA recipients are feeling the effect of the unjust bedroom tax. What does the Minister intend to do to raise discretionary housing payments to help alleviate the problems felt by people on DLA?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention discretionary housing payments. I looked into this matter quite carefully. We have been very generous in the amount of money that we have given to local authorities. Indeed, many local authorities have not spent the money we have made available to them. We also made available further funds for which local authorities could bid and, again, not all of that money was spent. So we have given local authorities the wherewithal to use discretionary housing payment to support those who they think have a good case following the removal of the spare room subsidy.

Stephen Mosley: One of the advantages of having two assessment companies is that the Minister should be able to make performance comparisons between them. Has my hon. Friend assessed the performance of both companies, and is there any good practice that can be carried from one to the other?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I look at the performance of both providers, Atos and Capita, and he is right—where we see good practice and particular things that work with one, we want to make sure we share that information with the other. Having the two is helpful for the Department in assessing their performance.

David Wright: I support the point made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames). Why are some of my constituents from Telford awaiting a PIP assessment being told that they will have to go to Stoke-on-Trent? It is an 80-mile round trip. One of the journey recommendations provided to one of my constituents involved sitting on a railway platform overnight waiting for a train. This is a disgrace. When is the Minister going to sort it out?

Mark Harper: Under the guidance that we give assessment providers for journey times, no one should have to travel for more than 90 minutes on public transport to go to an assessment, so if that was what the hon. Gentleman’s constituent was told, that was clearly a mistake. Ninety minutes is the maximum time people are supposed to have to travel by public transport, and for no longer.

Benefit Tourism

David Ruffley: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on measures to reduce benefit tourism.

Iain Duncan Smith: My Ministers, officials, and I are in regular dialogue with the European Commission and other member states about the co-ordination and reform of social security. The most recent meeting was at the October Employment and Social Policy Council.

David Ruffley: The think-tank Open Europe today proposed that EU migrants’ eligibility for in-work benefits and out-of-work benefits be restricted for the first three years. Are my right hon. Friend’s EU counterparts in northern Europe sympathetic to such views?

Iain Duncan Smith: Although I have not read the report, Open Europe has stated what we are already discussing with Ministers of many of the other countries concerned. They are all pretty much in agreement that the present system does not give them enough leeway, and there is a general sense that they want people to contribute more before they receive benefits. That is very much the tenor of the discussion, so what the think-tank writes is pretty much what I think is going to happen in Europe.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for his decision to ensure that my constituents who fled Sierra Leone because of Ebola were able to claim benefits and were not affected by the habitual residence test. Will he therefore reinstate the old rule whereby people who were advised by British embassies and high commissions to come back to Britain will have the habitual residence rule waived?

Iain Duncan Smith: The moment I heard the hon. Lady’s question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I immediately said to the Department, “Let me have the news on this”, and I changed the policy on that specifically for Ebola. I am keeping the matter under review to look at whether it is necessary to make a wider exemption, depending on what the embassies say, and I will come back to her about that in due course. I was horrified to see what had happened to her constituents.

Under-occupancy Penalty

Julie Hilling: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people subject to the under-occupancy penalty who have moved into a smaller home since the introduction of that penalty.

Iain Duncan Smith: The latest published figures showed that, as a result of various actions, 65,000 people were no longer affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. As at December 2013, around 22,000 had downsized or moved a year ago. New figures to be published in due course show that if that trend continues, up to 50,000 will have moved or downsized by now, with the total no longer affected even higher.

Julie Hilling: The justification for the cruel and heartless bedroom tax is that it would force people to move into smaller homes. As only about 5% of people hit by the tax have been able to move, not least because in areas such as mine there are no smaller properties to move to, does the Secretary of State accept that this policy has manifestly failed?

Iain Duncan Smith: Actually, I do not, and by the way I think the hon. Lady’s figures are not correct. I gave her higher figures even for last December. The rationale for the policy was fairness. The previous Government left us with the situation where some on housing benefit in the private sector were not allowed to occupy houses that had extra rooms, so balancing that is fair. Getting housing benefit spending under control after it nearly doubled in cash terms under the previous Government, and helping those living in overcrowded accommodation while we build more houses, giving them a chance to move into houses where they can fit their families—that is decent and fair.

Anne McGuire: Given that, according to recent surveys by social landlords, more than half the people impacted by the bedroom tax are now in arrears, what advice would the Secretary of State give those social landlords, particularly housing associations, about the unsustainable financial position they now find themselves in?

Iain Duncan Smith: Of course, we always keep in close contact with social landlords to ensure that they do what they are meant to do and do not overcharge. The Homes and Communities Agency’s latest figures show that arrears have fallen in the same period from last year and rent collection among housing associations is stable at around 98%, so I think that it is safe to assume that the under-occupancy penalty has had little effect on housing association arrears.

Gregg McClymont: The bedroom tax surely has a claim to be the most wrong-headed and iniquitous policy introduced by any Government in recent memory. The Government’s justification for this cruel tax was that putting it on social housing tenants would incentivise families and individuals to move into smaller homes, but the policy has one fatal flaw: the absence of homes for those families and individuals to move into. Surely the Secretary of State must today concede that the policy has been an abject failure and scrap the tax immediately.

Iain Duncan Smith: Apart from the rhetoric, the reality is that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It was his Government who started the process in the first place. I remind him that when they introduced the local housing allowance, they refused to allow anybody who accepted that benefit to live in a house that had extra bedrooms, because that would be unfair on those who were in that accommodation. We have restored that fairness. That is the right thing to do, and it saves £500 million a year.

Child Poverty

Diana Johnson: What forecast he has made of the likely level of child poverty in (a) 2015 and (b) 2020.

Lucy Powell: What forecast he has made of the likely level of child poverty in (a) 2015 and (b) 2020.

Steve Webb: Relative child poverty is now at its lowest level since the mid-1980s, and there are now 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty than in 2010. However, poverty projections are based on a number of factors that cannot be reliably predicted, including the median income.

Diana Johnson: According to the most recent figures published under this Government, 53% of children in the Orchard Park and Greenwood ward in my constituency are living in poverty, compared with 11% in the neighbouring constituency of Haltemprice and Howden. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that we do not end up with a permanently divided society?

Steve Webb: The fall in unemployment has happened across the country, and the risk that a child will be living in poverty is three times greater for those living in workless households than for those living in a house in work. We now have over 300,000 fewer children living in workless households, with more falls since those figures were put together. That is the best antidote to child poverty.

Lucy Powell: Those same figures show that Manchester Central has the fourth highest rate of child poverty in the country. That comes on top of the finding by the Government’s own Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission that there are now 600,000 more children in working households living in absolute poverty. When will Ministers stop denying that that is a problem and do something about it?

Steve Webb: I was very struck by the comments of the hon. Lady’s hon. Friend the shadow Education Secretary. According to a recent article:
	“Criticising the policies of the last Labour government, Mr Hunt said that the party had previously been too preoccupied with tax credits and not given enough thought to tackling social problems in families.”
	We are tackling those social problems through the troubled families initiative and a whole range of initiatives, such as the pupil premium, free school meals and more help with child care for young children. Disadvantaged children will benefit from our measures.

Bob Russell: Assuming that the Department for Work and Pensions supports the armed forces covenant, will the Minister indicate whether the children of any serving personnel might be brought into child poverty as a result of the Ministry of Defence’s decision in recent days, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, to jack up the rents for Army married housing.

Steve Webb: I take a close interest in those matters, as vice-chair of the ministerial committee on the armed forces covenant, and know that my hon. Friend has a proud record in speaking for his constituents on these matters. We have sought to benefit the children of serving personnel—for example, with regard to education if they have to move around the country—but I will be happy to raise with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence his concern about the impact of the rent increase and ensure that he receives a written response.

Disabled People (Work)

Jesse Norman: What steps he is taking to help people with disabilities into work.

Mark Harper: There is a range of provision to help disabled people, including the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work. We also launched our Disability Confident campaign to promote disabled people to employers.

Jesse Norman: I thank the Minister for that reply. Jobseekers with learning difficulties need support that jobcentres sometimes struggle to provide. They often do better when placed in social enterprises like Pack-IT Hereford in my constituency. Will he take steps to encourage such placements, and join me in congratulating Pack-IT Hereford on its work?

Mark Harper: I do indeed join my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in congratulating Pack-IT Hereford on its work. That is one of a range of opportunities that we are looking at to get more people with learning disabilities into work.

Andrew Gwynne: But the inconvenient truth for the Minister is that the Work programme has been a terrible failure, particularly for those on employment and support allowance. Last week, Ministers were boasting that things have improved: that 10% of people are being helped. That is fine—but what is he doing for the 90% who are not?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is a bit of a glass-half-full person. The 10% of people being helped through the Work programme is a significant improvement, and a significant number of people who go through Work Choice get into work. That is a very considerable record, and 116,000 more disabled people are in work this year than last year.

Maria Miller: The Minister is right that when it comes to getting a job, personalised support is as critical to people with a learning disability as it is to anyone else. Will he support Basingstoke’s Mencap, which provides training and a jobs club, and in February a jobs fair, to help people with learning disabilities to find the right work for them?

Mark Harper: I very much support my right hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable about these matters, and congratulate Mencap in her constituency on its Aspire project. It strongly supports the work of the Disability Confident campaign in getting more disabled people, including those with learning disabilities, into work, and I commend it strongly.

In-work Poverty

Kerry McCarthy: What recent estimate he has made of the incidence of in-work poverty.

Iain Duncan Smith: The number of people in in-work poverty fell by 300,000, according to the latest figures. The rate is flat in general terms since the election, despite there being more people in work than ever before, and there are almost a million more people in working families and above the poverty line.

Kerry McCarthy: Tomorrow is equal pay day, which marks the day on which women effectively start working for free because they earn on average only 80p for every £1 a man earns. Does the Secretary of State agree that addressing the gender pay gap, which has got worse under his Government, is key to tackling in-work poverty, and what does he intend to do about it?

Iain Duncan Smith: First, let us start from where we are: more women are now in work than ever before, which is a huge start. I also accept—[Interruption.] The rate is even better: it is a record rate. Of course, it is absolutely vital and right to ensure that women who go to work get paid a decent salary. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment has been leading the charge for the Department, doing a lot of campaigning. Universal credit, as it rolls out nationally, delivers for working women a far better deal, with higher wages, than they would get under the present system.

Ann McKechin: Given that 20% of workers are struggling on the minimum wage alone, when was the last time the Secretary of State spoke to employers about adopting a living wage for their workers?

Iain Duncan Smith: I have talked to employers endlessly about making sure that they pay a decent wage—first, making sure that people pay the minimum wage, which the last Government were rather slack about but we have done a lot on. My own Department pays our employees in London the London living wage, and we negotiated with the contractor to make sure everybody gets it, including all the cleaners.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the House is aware—but if not, I can inform Members—that the House of Commons is itself an accredited living wage employer.

Topical Questions

Dominic Raab: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today, I welcome the tougher action my Department has taken to recoup debt and safeguard taxpayers’ money. Now, where overpayments result from benefit fraud, the Department will always recover the maximum amount in legislation, ending concessions that previously meant that people paid back less, and making exceptions only where children will be affected.

Dominic Raab: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the latest official data, child poverty, elderly poverty, fuel poverty, inequality—using the Gini coefficient—the numbers of people not in education, employment or
	training, and the gender pay gap are all, every single one, lower under this Government than when Labour was in office?

Iain Duncan Smith: This Government have dealt with huge problems that were left to us. First, we had a collapsed economy. We are now putting that right, and we are also getting more people back to work. The best way to get people out of poverty is to get their families into work. Under this Government, there is now the lowest number of households in poverty.

Rachel Reeves: As others have remarked, this week is living wage week, when we celebrate the success of employers and campaigners in moving towards getting more workers paid a wage that they can afford to live on. Under this Government, the number of people paid less than a living wage has risen from 3.6 million to 4.9 million—more than one in five people. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s failure to tackle low pay means that more people in work are living in poverty, which is a key reason why the Government are spending £400 million more on housing benefit for people in work than when they came into office?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is good to see the hon. Lady; I know that she did not turn up and vote for her party’s own motion last week, and did not even sign it, but now we have her here. I answer her question by simply saying this: the reality is that we have seen the minimum wage rise faster under this Government than under the previous Government, with an increase of nearly 10% since the election. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing everything he can to pursue companies that do not pay the minimum wage, and we are prosecuting them.

Rachel Reeves: First, I would like the Secretary of State to withdraw what he said about my not being here last week. He does not know the reasons why I was not here, and I expect him to withdraw those comments.
	The truth is that the in-work benefits bill is rising in real terms because of this Government’s failure to build a recovery that benefits everyone, not just a few at the top. We have seen a historic squeeze on wages for the majority and the minimum wage falling behind the increase in inflation, with an increase of just 70p in five years. The reality is that taxpayers are footing the bill for the spread of low pay and insecurity under this Government. Is it not time that the Secretary of State adopted Labour’s plans to raise the minimum wage, to get more workers paid a living wage, to ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, and to build an economy that works for all working people?

Iain Duncan Smith: I remind the hon. Lady that it was under her Government that the minimum wage stalled. Under this Government, it has risen by nearly 10% to £6.50 from October 2014. As for those who are supposed to be worse off, it is calculated using real earnings. Labour Members use a very simplistic calculation, and it does not give the full picture. The reality is that this Government categorically have done more for low-paid people than the previous Government did in their whole time in office.

Rachel Reeves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: A point of order will come after questions. If it relates to these matters—[Interruption.] No, there is discretion. Exceptionally, I can take it after Question Time if it relates to these matters.

Rachel Reeves: It relates to the Secretary of State’s answer.

Mr Speaker: That is fine: I can take it after this questions session, most certainly.

Chris White: The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Warwick and Leamington has fallen by 70% since April 2010. Will the Minister join me in congratulating local businesses and the young people who work so hard to make this possible, and outline what measures are being taken to ensure that this trend continues?

Esther McVey: I will indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating not only the businesses that are supporting young people into work but the young people who have now got a job and are on their career journey, which we hope will be successful for them. Equally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on having a jobs fair in Leamington town hall and helping more people into work. It is Members on the Government Benches who are having jobs fair after jobs fair and really looking at ways to help people into work. [Interruption.] Rather than chuntering, it would be good if Opposition Members copied what we are doing.

Kerry McCarthy: A couple of weeks ago, a very disturbing press report said that teachers are having to resort to spending their reserves, or even the pupil premium money, on providing food, clothes, transport, beds, and even ovens for children living in poverty because they take the view that if children are not fed and have nowhere to sleep, they will never be able to achieve educationally. Is it not an absolute disgrace that schools are having to resort to that because the safety net is not there to meet the fundamental needs of these children?

Iain Duncan Smith: I have not seen that report, but I am happy to look at it. However, I believe that the work being done in schools under this Government to support people who come from low-income families is phenomenal. Introducing that support for those children means that more children are now staying in school. As I said earlier, they are getting better results directly as a result of that support provided for them in school.

Caroline Dinenage: Casework in my constituency has shown that, although the Department for Work and Pensions does well in identifying and prioritising claims made by terminally ill patients, when those claims are passed to Atos there is a lack of monitoring. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that those claims are dealt with in a timely manner at every point in the system?

Mark Harper: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We have introduced a range of improvements for claims from terminally ill people. We are already seeing claims at around the expected level of 10 days. The assessment providers treat these cases as a high priority: 99% are processed within two days and 100% within five days.

Graeme Morrice: One of the greatest failings of this Government is the high level of in-work poverty and the significant cost of in-work benefits. Therefore—this is a similar question to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who stole my thunder a tad—is it not time for the Secretary of State to be a real advocate of the living wage, to help address this problem?

Iain Duncan Smith: Under this Government, take-home pay rose last year by more than inflation for all but the richest 10%. Average annual pay growth is 3.7% for those who have stayed in work between 2012 and 2013, and disposable income last year was higher than in any year under the previous Government.

Philip Hollobone: Which Minister is responsible for worklessness? Will they get to their feet and accept the grateful thanks of the nation that the number of workless households is the lowest since records began, and will they explain to the House how it has been achieved?

Iain Duncan Smith: This is a tough one, but I will endeavour to do my best. On behalf of my team and my Government, I accept that we are doing the right thing, and more people are going to work than ever before.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State confirm the rumours that the job fairs occurring up and down the country get a lot of assistance from his Department and that that assistance goes to Conservative MPs and even Conservative candidates, but that Labour and Opposition Members are not offered the same support when they run anything similar?

Iain Duncan Smith: That allegation is without foundation. The jobcentres in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and all the others will give every bit of support to every Labour Member and any other Member, nationalist or otherwise, to get their job fairs going. I recommend that Labour Members do more to create job fairs in their own constituencies, to help people get back to work.

Nick de Bois: Ministers will be aware that another first for this side of the House is the launch of the Enfield over-50s jobs forum, helping to break down the barriers of getting older people back into work. Will Ministers meet me and support the vast number of local and national companies that have got behind it and fully support it?

Esther McVey: I will indeed meet my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on all the work he is doing, not just on job fairs in general but in supporting people over 50. He has developed something unique to help people have
	fuller working lives. I would be delighted to take forward what he is doing. In fact, I have looked at it, the Department now has a hold of it, and we are going to spread it right across the country.

Barbara Keeley: In earlier questions on the bedroom tax, it was not mentioned that this unfair charge hits 60,000 unpaid family carers, many of whom are not able to move from adapted homes. They cannot move into work, they cannot take extra hours and they need those additional rooms, which are essential for getting enough sleep to enable them to carry on caring. Is it not about time that we accepted that they should be exempt from the bedroom tax?

Iain Duncan Smith: We have already had court cases that leave this very clearly with the Department. Our view is that those who need to be exempted are exempted, and we have left discretionary payments of some £380 million with local authorities to make those local discretionary decisions themselves. The hon. Lady’s local authority can do just that.

Andrew Stephenson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this Government’s approach to the national minimum wage and its rise to £6.50 last month, which is the biggest cash increase since 2008 and 3% above inflation?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is exactly what has happened. The minimum wage has risen faster under this Government than under the previous Government, and we are driving for greater acceptance among businesses.

Stephen McCabe: How many people does the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), aspire to help on an annual basis through the Access to Work programme?

Mark Harper: I would very much like to help more. In the last financial year, 2013-14, we helped 35,000 individuals into Access to Work, which was 5,000 more than the previous year. That is a good start.

Edward Leigh: It is all very well for Germany to lecture us on the importance of the free movement of workers in Europe, but that is what it is supposed to be about—workers. Because Germany has a contributory system, one cannot arrive there and claim benefits. Will the Secretary of State take action, sort this matter out, take on the European Commission and say that people have to contribute taxes for three years before they can claim benefits here?

Iain Duncan Smith: We have already taken action. We have closed many of the loopholes and tightened things up. Come Monday next week, nobody will be able to claim out-of-work benefit for more than three months, and after that people will have to leave the country. They will not get housing benefit, they have to be able to speak English and they have to show that they are resident here. And that is only the beginning.

Debbie Abrahams: A research group from Oxford university has analysed the data from the Government’s new sanctions regime. It has identified that 4.5 million people on
	jobseeker’s allowance have been sanctioned, including young people. One in four of those who were sanctioned left JSA. More than half of those who left did so for reasons other than employment. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State apologise for his claim that his policies are getting people into work, when they clearly are not?

Iain Duncan Smith: As far as I am concerned, jobcentres apply sanctions only as a last resort. With the new actions that we have taken to get mandatory reconsideration, the number of appeals has dropped. The truth is that when the hon. Lady’s party was in government, it accepted the need for sanctions when people did not do what they were expected to do. Only in opposition does it claim that it is opposed to sanctions. It would not implement that policy if it was in government.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the fall in the number of JSA claimants in my constituency from more than 1,500 to below 700 since 2010. However, one area in which we face significant recruitment problems is nursing. That is a problem not just in Staffordshire but across the country. Will the Secretary of State talk to the Secretary of State for Health to see whether we can increase the number of training places at universities across the country?

Esther McVey: We will indeed speak to all the Departments to ensure that more people are recruited in different areas all the time. We speak to trade associations, national employers and other Departments. The wonderful news, which will be celebrated in all parts of the House, is that record numbers of people are in employment.

Mark Durkan: Will the Secretary of State update us on the work that is being done to prepare for the application of the welfare cap? Will he say whether that work has been informed by devolution considerations?

Iain Duncan Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the middle of discussing devolution proposals that emanated in Scotland but that cover all other elements of the United Kingdom. The key point that I make to him again and again is that Northern Ireland has not implemented the welfare legislation. As a result of that, it is difficult for us to deal with Northern Ireland directly on these matters, but I am certainly willing to engage.

Mr Speaker: As I indicated earlier, I will take the point of order because it relates to these matters.

Rachel Reeves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State criticised me for not turning up to vote on an Opposition day motion last week. He knows nothing of why I was not able to attend last week. I kindly ask him to withdraw his criticism and apologise for the aspersion that I could not be bothered to turn up to vote in the House of Commons.

Iain Duncan Smith: I simply made the point that it was good to see the hon. Lady here because she did not turn up to vote in the last debate. I understand that she retweeted that she was Rochester at the time. She was not put down as a signatory to the motion. Those are the points that I made.

Rachel Reeves: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot have a protracted exchange on this one matter. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to add anything further, I am content that she should do so.

Rachel Reeves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not in Rochester last week. I will give the Secretary of State one last opportunity to withdraw the aspersion and
	apologise. He knows nothing of the reason why I was not here last week, so I ask him to withdraw the aspersion and apologise.

Iain Duncan Smith: I stand by my assertion that the hon. Lady did not vote and that her name was not on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is the end of it for now.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the independent panel inquiry into child abuse, which has been established to consider whether institutions in England and Wales have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.
	The House will remember that in July, I made a statement in which I announced my intention to establish the panel inquiry. I did so because of the growing evidence of organised child sexual abuse, conducted over many years, and serious allegations about the failure of some of our most important institutions to protect children from this disgusting crime. I established a panel inquiry, because it is the best way of making sure that the inquiry is conducted by a team of experts with empathy and sensitivity to the feelings of the survivors of child abuse. The fact that it is a panel consisting of several people means that it has within it more expertise than any one person could offer. Importantly, the public can have extra confidence in the integrity of its work, because no one individual can take important decisions or come to judgments alone.
	The members of the panel—Sharon Evans, Ivor Frank, Dame Moira Gibb, Barbara Hearn, Professor Jenny Pearce, Dru Sharpling, Professor Terence Stephenson and Graham Wilmer—are in place, and they are supported by Ben Emmerson QC, who is counsel to the inquiry, and Professor Alexis Jay, who is the panel’s expert adviser. The panel therefore consists of members with a broad range of experience and skills. They have backgrounds in social care, academia, law enforcement, health care, the media and voluntary sector, and some have experienced sexual abuse themselves as children. I believe that the panel can command the confidence of the public and—most importantly—of the survivors of child abuse.
	The House will know, however, that on Friday, the panel’s chairman, Fiona Woolf, announced her intention to resign. She did so because, as she wrote in her letter to me,
	“it has become clear that the inquiry,—”
	if she continued to chair it—
	“would not have the widespread victim support it so desperately deserves and needs.”
	Fiona Woolf’s resignation follows the resignation of the panel’s first chairman, the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-Sloss. Both women, I believe, had strong credentials to chair the inquiry. Baroness Butler-Sloss was the first female Lord Justice of Appeal, president of the family division of the High Court, and she chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. Fiona Woolf is a leading lawyer and a former president of the Law Society. However, for different—and in the end, understandable—reasons, both Baroness Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf concluded that they did not command the confidence of survivors.
	Almost four months after I announced my intention to establish a panel inquiry, it is obviously very disappointing that we do not yet have a panel chairman, and for that I want to tell survivors that I am sorry. To put it bluntly,
	it will not be straightforward to find a chairman who has both the expertise to do this hugely important work, and has had no contact at all with an institution or an individual about whom people have concerns. I still believe, however, that it is possible to find somebody who is suitably qualified and can win the confidence of survivors, so I want to turn now to what I plan to do to recruit a new chairman.
	I will hold meetings with representatives of the survivors of child abuse, starting next week. I have already had a number of discussions with Members of Parliament who have campaigned for an inquiry into child abuse—the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Wells (Tessa Munt), for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), and my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—and I will continue to have discussions with them. I will also discuss the appointment of the new panel chairman with the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I have already agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the nominated panel chairman will attend a pre-confirmation hearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee.
	In the meantime, the panel will go about its important work, and I can tell the House that it will hold its first meeting on Wednesday 12 November, and meet every Wednesday thereafter until Christmas. The panel will organise other meetings that will discuss the different themes and issues covered by the inquiry, and attendance for those meetings—for both panel members and expert witnesses—will be set accordingly. In addition, the panel secretariat is planning two regional events that will be held before Christmas, and another four that will be held in the new year. Those regional events will provide an early opportunity for survivors to give their views about how the panel should go about its work.
	One matter that I know has been raised by some campaigners is whether the inquiry should become a statutory inquiry. The inquiry, as constituted at present, like the inquiries into Hillsborough and the murder of Daniel Morgan, is a non-statutory inquiry. I have already said that the panel will have access to all Government papers, reviews and reports that it requests, and subject to the constraints imposed by any criminal investigations, it will be free to call witnesses from any organisation it deems appropriate. However, as I said to the House in July, I want to make it clear that, if the panel chairman deems it necessary, the Government are prepared to convert it into a full statutory inquiry, in line with the Inquiries Act 2005.
	Another matter that has been raised is the terms of reference for the inquiry. Some say the terms are too broad, while others say the terms are too narrow. I do not propose to narrow the terms of reference, because to do that would risk missing out, in a fairly arbitrary manner, some important institutions. Likewise, I do not propose to extend the terms of reference to include Northern Ireland, Scotland or the Crown dependencies. I will, however, discuss with the new panel chairman how the Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey can feed in to the panel to make sure that no information, and no institutions or individuals with a case to answer, can fall through the cracks.
	I can also tell the House that the Government are considering ways of trying to make the experience of giving evidence less traumatic for survivors. The panel will therefore take evidence not just in public and private meetings, but remotely, with witnesses able to speak to panel members from their homes. The secretariat to the inquiry is also in discussions with officials in the Department of Health and other organisations to ensure that counselling and support is available to survivors before and after they provide evidence to the inquiry. To ensure that there is an open channel of communication between survivors, the panel and the Government, I will establish a survivor liaison group, which will meet on a regular basis as long as the inquiry continues.
	Some Members of the House have suggested that the Government should publish today the Wanless report about the Home Office permanent secretary’s investigation into the so-called Dickens dossier. I can tell the House that the Wanless report will be published next week. That is because it is about a separate but related matter to the work of the panel inquiry, and I want members of the public and the media to have time to scrutinise both this statement and the Wanless review properly.
	In the midst of debate about names, structures and legal powers, we must always keep in mind the survivors of child abuse themselves. Let us remember the events that prompted me to announce this historic inquiry into child abuse in the first place. There was the systematic abuse of vulnerable young girls in Derby, Rochdale, Oxford and other towns and cities across the country; examples of celebrities abusing minors and getting away with it, apparently because of their fame; and evidence that some of the most important institutions in the country, from the BBC to the NHS, failed in their duty of care towards children.
	Since I made my statement in July, the evidence has only mounted. We have seen the Alexis Jay report into abuse in Rotherham, and the report by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), which was commissioned by Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. Both reports exposed serious failings among the police, social services, schools and other institutions, and the obvious conclusion is that, if only we had learned from those appalling cases earlier, there would be fewer victims of abuse today. I believe the whole House will agree with me that we owe it to the survivors in all those cases to work together, to let the panel inquiry do its job as quickly as possible, and to start to learn the lessons of the many cases where undoubtedly too many things went horribly wrong.
	I want to end my statement by issuing a direct message to the many survivors of child abuse and their representatives:
	I know you have experienced terrible things. I know we cannot imagine what that must be like. And I know that, perhaps because of the identity of your abusers or the way you were treated when you needed help, many of you have lost trust in the authorities. I know some of you have questioned the legitimacy of this process. I know you are disappointed that the panel has no chairman. I understand that. I am listening, and to you, I say this: I am as determined as you are to get to the truth. That is why I set up this inquiry.
	We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something that is hugely important. Together, we can expose what has gone wrong in the past. We can prevent it going wrong in the future.
	We can make sure that people who thought they were beyond the reach of the law face justice. We can do everything possible to save vulnerable young children from the appalling abuse that you suffered and endured. Let us come together to make this process work and finally deliver justice for what you and too many others have suffered.
	I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement to the House today.
	Two years ago this month, the Home Secretary came to the House to announce investigations into abuse in north Wales care homes. I asked her then if she would set up an overarching inquiry into child abuse. In July this year, she rightly agreed to do so and said that she wanted it to start as quickly as possible. Four months later, that inquiry has not started and has been mired by confusion. I therefore welcome the changes she has announced today and her apology to survivors of abuse for the things that have gone wrong.
	This House will be united in our determination that this inquiry should get back on track. For too long, children have not been listened to when they called for help. From the BBC to the national health service, from care homes to the police, from local councils to national Governments of all political parties, no institution or organisation should be complacent about how they may have failed in the past, or might be failing even now, to make sure that children are heard and protected, that criminals are brought to justice, that problems are not covered up, and that survivors get the support they need. No one should be in any doubt about the deep damage that abuse causes to those survivors for the rest of their lives. To get the inquiry back on track, we also need to recognise the things that went wrong, because it is vital that it does not fail again.
	First, much more work is needed to involve survivors. I welcome the further announcements the Home Secretary has made today. The Home Secretary was specifically asked in July by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) how survivors would be involved. In July, she said that that was up to the chairman of the inquiry. However, I think that that approach from the Home Office has been what has caused some of the current problems. As she has recognised today, Ministers need to engage directly themselves with survivors on the impartiality of the chair and the work and purpose of the inquiry before it starts. I welcome her commitment now to meet survivors, in particular to develop additional support and counselling, and to establish a survivors’ forum or liaison group to ensure that their voices are heard. She will know how important it is that this liaison group or forum works effectively. Will she specifically consult with survivors in those meetings on the terms of reference and on the issues the inquiry should focus on before it starts?
	Secondly, on the choice of chair, I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals to consult more widely. Will she ignore those siren voices who say it is not possible to find someone who is not a close contact of those whose decisions may be investigated by the inquiry? She will know that other sensitive inquiries have managed to do important work without going wrong and without being
	derailed, including the Hillsborough and Soham inquiries, and including the current Northern Ireland inquiry into child abuse.
	Thirdly, on transparency, the inquiry has to address concerns about whether there have been institutional cover-ups. Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that it was very unwise of Home Office officials to become involved in redrafting Fiona Woolf’s letters? Will she tell the House whether Ministers or special advisers saw those earlier letters, or were involved in redrafting? Will she make sure that no one in the Home Office is involved in drafting any disclosure letters for the next chair?
	I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that the Wanless review report will be published next week. Will she make a statement to the House on it? She will know that there will be considerable interest from all parties in the House. This is not just about the past. We know that abuse is happening now on an unacceptable scale. Will she therefore ensure that there is much greater transparency on child protection work today, particularly the work of the National Crime Agency, to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes again and are not storing up more problems for children in future?
	Fourthly, on the progress of the inquiry, I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to getting the panel moving before the chair is appointed and to keeping open the need for it to be a statutory inquiry, because it is vital that it can get access to all the information and testimony it needs.
	This is an extremely important inquiry. The Home Secretary has done the right thing to recognise that things have gone wrong, and we will support her in the action needed and whatever it takes to get things back on track and ensure that the inquiry works. However, let me also urge her not to forget the scale of the problem of child abuse and exploitation happening right now and the weaknesses in the child protection system today. We need a fearless and robust examination of how children have been let down, and we will support her in making sure that happens; but we also need strong action to protect children and make sure they are heard in future. She is right that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity; it is important, not just for survivors but for our children today, to make sure that this historic opportunity is not lost.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone and approach she has taken to this matter. As I said in my statement, across the House we all feel that we have an opportunity to do something that can deal with the terrible abuses and crimes that have taken place in the past and to learn the lessons that are necessary for the future. As we have seen with the recent reports into Rotherham and the report about Greater Manchester from the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), these issues have not gone away. We continue to see abuse taking place and we continue to see failures, sadly, in our institutions—some of them the very institutions that children should expect to be able to trust to protect them from these sorts of crimes.
	The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions. On engagement with survivors, as I indicated, I will be meeting with survivors groups. The secretariat to the panel inquiry has also started some separate meetings with survivors groups already. As I indicated, there will
	be further opportunities for such meetings and for some open forums in different parts of the country, where it will be possible for people to come forward. I recognise the importance of that process; it is an important part of the work that the panel inquiry will be undertaking.
	I believe it will be possible to find an individual who is able to chair the inquiry. Of course, it is necessary that that individual has the confidence of the survivors and the skill set required to lead a team, which is what the panel inquiry is all about. This is not about one person as chairman making decisions; it is about a team of people with different expertise and experience—some on the panel are survivors of child abuse themselves, as I have said—coming together to ensure we can get to the truth.
	The right hon. Lady asked a question about the drafting process for the letters and whether I was aware of it. I was not. I have checked with my special advisers; they were aware only that a letter was being written. They had no knowledge of its different iterations and had no part in drafting or redrafting the letter.
	The right hon. Lady made reference to the need for transparency in a number of areas and in relation to the National Crime Agency as well. The work that the National Crime Agency has been doing—particularly the now over 700 arrests we have seen in Operation Notarise—is an important sign of the seriousness with which it takes these issues. As she will be aware, the director general of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, has made a number of comments about the significance and the size of the potential problem we face in this country. It is shocking. I am sure every Member of this House is appalled by the scale and nature of these crimes. I believe the National Crime Agency is being open about the work it is undertaking on that.
	We owe it to the survivors of historic child abuse, as well as to those who might be subject to child abuse today, to ensure not only that the panel inquiry is doing its work, but that those involved in criminal investigations today are bringing perpetrators to justice.

Tim Loughton: I commend the Home Secretary for the very measured way in which she has approached this issue, and I remind the House that it is only because of her that this inquiry is now taking place in response to Back Benchers’ requests. I remind my right hon. Friend that this is an overarching inquiry, encompassing everything from Savile to Rotherham, and not about individual children or individual people who may or may not have been implicated. This is not a one-woman show; it is a panel of experts open to scrutiny. Will she reiterate to me that to put survivors at the heart of this inquiry, it will be necessary to consult them about the possibilities for a future chairman and to have a sounding-board of survivors and victims, who have not been listened to for so many decades, so that they can continue to shape the inquiry as it goes forward and gain their confidence every step of the way? That is vital and I know she supports it.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes very important points, and I am grateful to him for the conversations we have had. As I indicated, I have spoken to a number of Members who have been campaigning on this issue over the years. He is absolutely right that the terms of reference mean that the panel inquiry will look at a
	period of 44 years—from 1970 to today—and that it is open to the panel to decide whether it wishes to go beyond that period. It is indeed overarching, looking at cases of historical abuse and more recent cases to find out what were the institutional failures when it came to protecting children, and what further lessons need to be learned. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must remember the survivors in this work; it is for them that we are trying to find the answers to what happened in the past and trying to ensure that in future people will not have to go through the terrible experiences that some did. I will set up a liaison group, whose aim will be exactly as my hon. Friend suggested—to ensure that the survivors are kept in touch and able to contribute as the inquiry goes along.

David Blunkett: I commend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for the tone of the statement and the response. The emphasis on survivors and victims raises the issue, as the Home Secretary mentioned, of the scale of the problem. What immediate steps could be put in place not just to help the historical victims but to prepare for further revelations? It is beyond belief that this is not a nationwide problem rather than one confined to the areas that have already been identified. Given the enormity of the task confronting the panel, would it be reasonable in practical terms at least to consider having a joint chair, so that two people could address not only the historical lessons but where we need to go in changing the culture and altering the nature of how this country’s institutions have worked?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion, which was proposed to me by another Member this morning. The point of having a panel is that not just one individual or indeed potentially two co-chairs will be undertaking this work. The idea is to have a group of people coming together with different experience and different expertise. Unlike in simple judge-led inquiries where one person leads, it is very much the case that all the panel members will contribute. The chairman’s role is about the management of the inquiry, but the management in this case will be through a team of people brought together to ensure that the work is done properly.

William Cash: The Home Secretary is to be commended for the tone in which she has delivered the statement. Is there not a problem, however? If the chairman asked for an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry—I experienced this when I had to demand the public inquiry into the Mid-Staffordshire hospital, which proved to be a significant success—does the Home Secretary realise that she would have to disband the whole thing and go back to square one? Would it not be far better to start off with an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry, which would allow evidence on oath, compulsion of witnesses and other matters to help us get to the bottom of this as we did with the Mid-Staffs inquiry?

Theresa May: I hesitate to question my hon. Friend’s comments on such matters, but my advice is that it would be possible to turn the inquiry into a statutory one—namely, an inquiry with the powers of a statutory inquiry to compel witnesses—but for that to happen it
	would be necessary to have a request from the chairman. At the moment, it is not possible because we do not have a chairman. Once the chairman is in place, they will be able to make that judgment and come forward if they wish to turn this into a statutory inquiry.

Jack Straw: Will the Home Secretary follow up the—in my view—very sensible suggestion from her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney-General, that the net should be cast more widely on this occasion, and that the search for a chair should extend to jurisdictions abroad that are similar to ours?

Theresa May: Our initial consideration of potential candidates did involve looking more widely than the United Kingdom, and I should be happy to repeat that process. It should be borne in mind that it is not only the United Kingdom that has seen examples of child abuse of this sort. If we do look more widely, we must be careful to ensure that individuals will again be able to have the confidence of survivors.

John Hemming: Leah McGrath Goodman, an American journalist, was banned from entering the country by the UK Border Agency, as a result of which she was prevented from investigating child abuse in Jersey. The allegations involved a senior UK politician. I hear what the Home Secretary says about terms of reference, but the terms of reference would exclude investigation of an issue that falls into two jurisdictions. Why, for instance, was Leah McGrath Goodman arrested at Heathrow airport recently? Will the Home Secretary look carefully at such issues, which are evidence of the way in which things have been covered up during the present decade?

Theresa May: I know that my hon. Friend has long campaigned for events that took place in Jersey to be included in any inquiry that is held. As I explained earlier, I will take steps to ensure that no work that is done by the inquiry into matters in Jersey is lost to this inquiry, if it is relevant to this inquiry, and that no one falls through the cracks. As for the case of the journalist coming through the border, I was not aware of it, but if my hon. Friend writes to me about it, I will respond.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the tone and content of the Home Secretary’s statement, which drew a line under the flawed process that we have seen so far, and which will give hope to the victims who have been waiting for this inquiry. The Select Committee accepts her proposal that we should conduct pre-appointment hearings, which may well set a precedent for parliamentary scrutiny of future public inquiries. In the meantime, she has set a very ambitious programme for the panel, and it is right that it should begin its work by meeting every Wednesday until Christmas. Who will chair those proceedings, or will the chair rotate between the panel members?
	I am glad that the Home Secretary will be publishing the Wanless-Whittam report. The Committee hopes to examine both gentlemen next week. Will the Home Secretary assure us that there are no other documents that are relevant to the inquiry and have not been
	published, and that, if there are any such documents, she will make them available to the Committee and to the panel?

Theresa May: It would be possible for me to appoint an existing member of the panel to chair it on an interim basis, but I think that that should be discussed with the panel members to ensure that they are comfortable with any arrangements that are made. They will have their own proposals about how they wish to conduct their work. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee for their willingness to take the process on board, and to hold a pre-confirmation meeting. I asked for that to be done because I think it important for the appointment to have a public element that can further guarantee the confidence of survivors in the process.
	I certainly intend all Government documents to be made available to the inquiry, but I caution the right hon. Gentleman that it will be for the panel to consider the appropriateness of publishing some of the material that is put before it. The same process applied to the members of the Hillsborough inquiry panel. There were some matters that they considered, for a range of reasons, in relation to individuals with whom they discussed those matters, and it is possible that there are matters of that sort that this panel would not wish to be aired in public.

Maria Miller: The whole House will welcome the Home Secretary’s determination to get to the truth. Can she reassure constituents who have been victims of child abuse and have contacted me that the inquiry will start its work as soon as possible, and that the appointment of the chair will not cause unnecessary delay? I think that the victims deserve answers, and they are concerned about the delay that they are seeing.

Theresa May: I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. We had previously been waiting for the chairman to be in place before the inquiry set forth on its work. I think it is important that it does start now. As I have said, it is possible for it to start without a chairman, because it is a panel of members. I think everybody in this House wants to see this work started, and to get it going so we can see results coming from the work of the inquiry, because that is what is due to survivors. I am sure that that sentiment will be supported across the whole House.

Ann Coffey: I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. One of the shocking facts in historical child abuse cases is that institutional and wider public attitudes at the time enabled abusers to prey on children at will because children were not listened to. Does the Home Secretary agree that part of this inquiry’s job in learning from the past must be to bring forward recommendations about how we tackle wider cultural attitudes that mean that vulnerable children are still too often blamed for their own abuse because of how they look or what they wear?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree. What has been shocking in the Rotherham case and in the hon. Lady’s report into Greater Manchester—and we have also seen this in the historical cases—is the fact that those who were being abused often raised their voices but were not heard because they were not believed, or because, and I think is truly
	shocking, people felt that those young people were in a circumstance such that they should not be listened to. As the hon. Lady said, in some sense this was seen as just the sort of thing that happened to those sorts of young people. This is an appalling attitude. We have seen it, and, sadly, we see it still today, in the work that is being done out there, as the hon. Lady has revealed. We see police officers, people in social services and others almost casting to one side certain individuals and not being willing to take up their cases. It is time that people looked not at the credibility of the individual, but at the credibility of the allegation.

Andrew Lansley: I welcome what the Home Secretary said about the panel proceeding with its work, but it does depend in part on the results of other inquiries into institutions, including those by Kate Lampard on the NHS and Dame Janet Smith on the BBC. Can the Home Secretary tell the House any more about the progress being made in the production of those reports? Clearly the panel will be able to access disclosure of documents, but I think we should assume that it will wish to go beyond that to independent investigations. Will she tell the House what kind of investigative resources would be available to the panel, should it seek them?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is right. I am not able to give him an absolute timeline on the other reports he referred to, but I am very happy to write to him, or for the Secretaries of State responsible for the Departments affected by those inquiries to write to him, to indicate where they are at the moment. It is important that all the evidence that is brought before this panel inquiry is available to it and it will obviously be looking at both historical cases and, as the reviews become available, looking into those reviews.
	As far as investigations taking place, it is not the task of the inquiry to determine criminal or civil liability for any individual. Where it is the case that allegations are made against an individual as a perpetrator, those allegations will be passed to the police. There will be an ability, through setting up various processes, to ensure allegations go to the police and are properly dealt with. So the investigation into specific allegations will be a matter for the police.

Simon Danczuk: I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but does she agree that the role of the Home Office in the redrafting of Fiona Woolf’s letter in many ways displays the kind of self-preservation instincts held by the Home Office that got us into this mess in the first place? Who instructed the civil servants to assist Fiona Woolf in redrafting that letter?

Theresa May: The process, as I understand it, was that Fiona Woolf wanted to ensure that she was as transparent as possible in the information she gave in the letter she sent to me, and therefore went through a number of drafts in order to ensure that all information was available. As I have indicated, I was not aware of those iterations of drafts of the letter. I think it is important that we have ensured that there was transparency from Fiona Woolf, but, of course, other members of the panel were also asked to write to me to indicate whether there were any matters they felt should be known and people should be aware of before the panel started its work.

Julian Huppert: I welcome the tone adopted by the Home Secretary. It is absolutely right that survivors must have confidence in the work of the inquiry. May I press her on the matter of the Kincora boys home in Northern Ireland? In her statement, she has said that she will not expand the terms of reference to cover Kincora, but I understand that she wrote to the First Minister of Northern Ireland last week to say that if there was not enough co-operation from the security services, she would seek agreement to bring that matter inside the terms of reference. Will she make it clear what is likely to happen in that regard?

Theresa May: I am not able to look ahead and see how this is going to progress, but I am clear that we need to ensure that the Sir Anthony Hart has all the information he needs to be able to undertake his investigation into Kincora. I have made it clear today that we need to ensure that nothing happens to allow any information or any individual to slip between the cracks in terms of the work of the two inquiries. We will be talking to the panel inquiry about what needs to be put in place to ensure that information can be exchanged where it is relevant to both inquiries, precisely so that people will not slip between the cracks as a result of there being two inquiries.

Tom Watson: I thank the Home Secretary for putting survivors at the centre of this inquiry. She made a very personal statement today, which I am sure will be appreciated. In a previous statement, she said that a mechanism would be found to allow panel members to have access to intelligence service files, where relevant. Will she give us a little more detail on the progress on that front?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue on behalf of survivors. This is an issue that we have looked at in relation to Kincora boys home, and we are also looking at it in relation to this inquiry. It is my expectation and intention that all Government agencies will make information available to the inquiry when they are requested to do so. We are in the process of working out the protocol to ensure that that is possible between all agencies and the inquiry, so that no stone is left unturned.

Michael Ellis: I join others in commending the Home Secretary for her tone. I also commend the tone of those on the Opposition Front Bench. I particularly commend the Home Secretary for setting up the inquiry in the first place. By doing so, she has transcended the issues of the past, and we now hope to arrive at some important truths. What is often not mentioned is the vast expertise of the members of the inquiry panel. They bring with them a vast amount of experience, and two of the panel’s members are themselves survivors. Will she confirm her confidence in the panel as it stands? I commend her for factoring in the crucial importance of survivors being at the forefront of this exercise.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: we brought the panel members together precisely because of the breadth of their experience and expertise. As he said, Graham Wilmer, who established the Lantern Project, is himself a survivor who has
	worked to help and support other survivors. Another member of the panel, Professor Pearce, has been working on these issues in an academic setting. There is representation from the health service, as well as from Dru Sharpling, an inspector of constabulary who brings the law enforcement angle to the panel. The members of the panel possess a significant amount of expertise and individual experience, and I believe that all of them coming together will lead to them being able to get to the truth.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I should like to add my voice to those who have expressed appreciation of the Home Secretary’s sincerity today. No one doubts her sincerity for a moment. However, most people do not get a second chance, never mind a third one, to get something right. Will she now listen carefully to the unanimous representations from the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Northern Ireland Assembly—it is a difficult enough task to get a unanimous view from the Assembly—that Kincora should be included in the inquiry? Will she now get this matter right as well?

Theresa May: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the Kincora inquiry, and that there have been representations; indeed, the First Minister himself made representations to me about the inclusion of Kincora. As I have indicated, I want to ensure that the Hart inquiry can do its work and have access to all the information to which it needs to have access. I also want to ensure that there is no question of any problems, individuals or organisations in any sense escaping attention as a result of there being two inquiries. For a number of reasons, not least the fact that the panel inquiry currently covers England and Wales, any work undertaken here obviously could not require changes in Northern Ireland, because this is a devolved not a reserved matter. We are all at one in agreeing that we want to make sure that these inquiries get to the truth, and that nobody and no institution can slip through the net.

Edward Garnier: May I urge my right hon. Friend to think about the suggestion made by our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about setting up a statutory inquiry as soon as possible? I appreciate what she has said about waiting for the appointment of the chairman, but as soon as the chairman is appointed, will she consult him or her on transferring the inquiry across to the statutory system? It is much better to do that now, rather than when we are halfway through the process.
	Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing, or urging the appointment, of a serving or recently retired senior judge who has experience of family law, children’s law and historical sex abuse, so that we can have an inquiry chairman who brings with them their authority and who commands respect?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his proposal. The process for a statutory inquiry is that it is for the chairman, once they are in place, to determine whether the inquiry should become a statutory one. I have made it absolutely clear—I do not think that I can be any clearer—that if they feel that that is necessary in order to compel witnesses and have the other powers of a statutory inquiry, the Government will respond to that.
	On the sort individual who should be appointed, the important aspect is to have somebody in whom everybody dealing with the inquiry can have confidence and, crucially, in whom survivors can have confidence. When she wrote to me, Fiona Woolf said that it was that issue that led to her resignation.

Paul Flynn: In making the progress that we all want, will the Home Secretary consider the names I will send to her of two people who are sensitive and greatly experienced in this field, but who cannot in any way be classed with the metropolitan elite? We should not move away from this matter without considering the serious situation in which the first of the seven versions of the letter, which was not presented to the Home Affairs Committee, gave the impression of a close friendship between the Brittans and Fiona Woolf, while the final version suggested that they were almost strangers. Was that not an attempt by the civil service to mislead the Committee and, by doing so, to mislead the House? What is she going to do about that?

Theresa May: I do not believe that there was any attempt to mislead the House. The letter that I received was the letter that Fiona Woolf agreed. I believe that she intended in that letter to be as transparent as possible about the nature of her relationship with the noble Lord Brittan. I am sure that many Members of the House have proposals about individuals who would be appropriate for the chairmanship, and I will certainly look at the names that the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to me.

Steven Baker: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s desire for the committee’s work to start as soon as possible, but does she share my concern that the longer its work continues, the harder it will be for a chair to pick up that work and assert themselves? May I press her to explain a little further the extent to which she has considered asking a panel member to take the chair?

Theresa May: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We will consider a variety of names for the chair. He and others have suggested that we should look at taking someone from within the panel itself, but as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has said, there may be other suggestions that Members wish to make. It is a fine judgment, and I want to ensure that the person who is appointed has our full confidence and can carry on the work of the inquiry. But, as my hon. Friend has also said, that process must not take so long that it becomes difficult for the individual to pick up the work of the inquiry. We will be operating in the knowledge of both those aspects.

David Winnick: Whatever the distinguished legal experience was of the two people originally chosen, why did the Home Secretary decide to restrict her choice to a very small part of Westminster? On reflection, would it not have been better for her to have consulted on this serious issue—as she intends to do now, which I very much welcome—from the very start?

Theresa May: I did not restrict my choice, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to a very small part of Westminster. As I said to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), we also looked outside the United Kingdom, and I am willing to do that again.

Oliver Heald: In joining in the welcome for the Home Secretary’s approach and tone, may I also ask her this: in the preparatory work and the taking of evidence that she has announced that the panel will be doing, can it be borne in mind that there may come a time when the chairman, having been appointed, wants to make a decision under the Inquiries Act 2005? Would it therefore be possible to ensure that the work of the panel is constructed in such a way that it avoids possible later duplication? That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) was making when he said that it might be necessary to recall witnesses and so on. If the panel had that in mind, it would be very useful.

Theresa May: My hon. and learned Friend has made a practical suggestion about the operation of the panel inquiry, and it is certainly one that I will take on board.

Diane Abbott: The Home Secretary will be aware that very many survivors of sex abuse were genuinely frightened and upset at the notion of Fiona Woolf chairing the panel. Mr Alex Wheatle, who experienced child abuse in the Shirley Oaks home in Croydon, wrote in The Independent to that effect, so it is for the best that she has now withdrawn. On the question of security services, if the security services refuse to supply information, or if they supply information that is so heavily redacted that it is worse than useless, what recourse will the chair of the inquiry have?

Theresa May: As I said when I made the statement in July and as I have repeated here today, I have been very clear to all the agencies involved that it is the expectation and the intention that they should make evidence available to the inquiry. Of course, as has been mentioned, the chair will have to consider whether this is a non-statutory or a statutory inquiry with the powers to compel witnesses that a statutory inquiry would have. I wish to reiterate that, across the whole of Government, we have an opportunity to address this issue, find out what happened in the past, find out the failings and ensure that we learn the lessons for the future, and that is what I expect every part of Government to do.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and her support for this inquiry and look forward to the publication of the Wanless and Whittam report next week. Will she confirm that the reasons for the delay in the publication of that report are exclusively those that she gave in her statement and that officials in her Department are not engaged in redacting any material from that report that they do not consider suitable for placing in the public domain?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that there are two reasons why the report has not yet been published. One is, as I said in my statement, that it is important that it is published separately and on its own, so that people can look at it and then look at this statement and what I have announced today and consider them both properly. Receiving a report of this sort is not just a formality. I have had to consider it and I have asked some questions to ensure that it has addressed the terms of reference that were given.

Caroline Lucas: I particularly welcome the fact that the Home Secretary will be consulting the survivor groups before appointing a chair, but may I press her on the terms of reference a little further? Will she confirm that they can be amended and broadened as the inquiry progresses if new evidence comes to light suggesting new avenues to be covered, not just on Jersey, but in any other direction the evidence might suggest?

Theresa May: We were very clear in the terms of reference about one particular aspect: it would be open to the inquiry panel to come forward if it wished to extend the timeframe we have set. What I am keen to ensure, as I am sure are other Members, is that the terms of reference are such that the inquiry is able to do its work, and do it within a reasonable time scale, so that we can see some answers coming. We do not just owe that to survivors; if there are lessons to be learned and actions that need to be taken to protect children, currently and in the future, we need to see those lessons and be able to put those actions into place. If the chairman and the panel were to reach a point where they felt that their terms of reference were such that there was an important aspect they were not able to consider that was preventing them from getting to the truth, of course the Government would look at that.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend has rightly set broad terms of reference and has rightly set a wide time scale so that nothing can be excluded. But the panel is going to be required to consider the behaviour over many years of broadcasters, children’s homes, churches, clubs, Government agencies and organisations, hospitals, schools, youth organisations and others, so does the House not have to recognise that that is a herculean task and that we have to be patient? If this work is going to be done properly, it cannot be done instantly; it will take a little time. There is a trade-off between having broad terms of reference and a wide period of examination, and the time it takes for the work to be done.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is essential that we are able to ensure that the inquiry can get on with its work and, as I have just indicated in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), that we start to see results in terms of the analysis that will be undertaken of what has gone wrong in the past, what is continuing to go wrong and what further lessons we need to learn. We owe that not just to the survivors of past incidents of abuse, but to those who are vulnerable and could be potential victims in the future.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the new start to the inquiry, but may I say to the Home Secretary that anyone who watched the Baby Peter documentary last week will know what a difficult area this is in terms of simply getting to the truth of what really happened in the death of one child? What we need out of this committee is not only independence; we need it to be rigorous so that it finds out who the perpetrators are, because this is a national scandal. Will she also bear it in mind that during my time as Chair of the relevant Committee, I found some deeply damaged people who were the victims of false allegations of abuse? It destroyed them, their careers and their families, so getting the balance right in this and not having a hue and cry is essential.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. What is essential is that the results of this inquiry are those in which everybody can have confidence, to ensure that it has got to the truth. As he says, it is very difficult in this area to identify what has happened, but I would say that we have seen, in the reports on child abuse in Rotherham and in the report from the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), some good examples recently of people—Professor Alexis Jay and the hon. Lady—who have gone out and been able to identify real failings in institutions which, sadly, are still taking place today.

Charlotte Leslie: Further to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and others, I thank the Home Secretary for assurances that there is the potential for the inquiry to be statutory, but given that those potentially implicated may be embedded deep in the marrowbone of the establishment, does she agree that in order to gain the confidence of the survivors, imbue fear into perpetrators who may think they are untouchable and protect existing and future potential victims, the inquiry must have teeth right from the start, not be dependent on the chair’s discretion? Given that it is the establishment itself that is under investigation, those teeth may have to be very long and very sharp indeed.

Theresa May: I agree that we want to ensure that the panel is able to get to the truth. In this area and particularly looking at historical cases, this is not an easy task and members of the panel will have to be prepared to go wherever the evidence leads them. My hon. Friend referred to the discretion of the chair. The point of having the panel is that it is not the discretion of the chair that will determine where this inquiry goes, who is called to give evidence or what reviews are considered. That will be for the panel as a whole, which is why it is important to have the breadth of expertise that we have on the panel.

Liz McInnes: It is right that the emphasis should be on support for survivors, but can the Home Secretary give more detail about the survivors liaison group, how it will be set up and, more importantly for me, whether there will be representation from my constituency, Heywood and Middleton?

Theresa May: This is my first opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady to the House, and she is already standing up for her constituents, as she has just indicated. The precise model of the survivors liaison group is not yet available. I will discuss with survivors groups how that liaison group should be operated in order to ensure that it has the confidence of survivors and is able to input to the extent to which we wish it to. On that basis, I am not able to confirm who will be on it and therefore which part of the country they will be from.

David Rutley: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her heartfelt commitment to seeing the inquiry process moved further forward. I also welcome the announcement that the inquiry panel will be able to take evidence remotely, which is vital, given the victims’ experiences. When will the panel be able to use this innovative and appropriate approach? All Members of the House, with her, are keen to move the inquiry forward as fast as possible.

Theresa May: We are keen to ensure that we get the technology in place as soon as possible so that the inquiry panel can take evidence remotely, for those who wish to do so. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, though, that we need to ensure the security of that process. When the matters being dealt with are as personal as they will be for survivors, it is right that we get the technology in place and ensure that it is secure.

Nia Griffith: The Home Secretary has stressed the importance of current protection for children. In the appalling case of the deputy head teacher from Cardiff in Wales who was jailed in May this year for having secretly filmed children in toilets, it turns out that the National Crime Agency did not pass on details about this man to the South Wales police for a whole 19 months. The NCA has information about 20,000 individuals who have accessed child abuse on the internet and only 700 of those have been prosecuted. What will she do to ensure that progress is made in dealing with the issue so that children can be better protected?

Theresa May: From the timeline that the hon. Lady set out, the information that she refers to would initially have been with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre before the National Crime Agency was established. The National Crime Agency has been clear about the number of people it has identified who have been looking at child abuse images. Under the National Crime Agency more people who are looking at child abuse images are having action taken against them. In the past year more than 1,000 people have had action taken against them, and Operation Notarise has led to the investigation of over 700 individuals. So the National Crime Agency is working. It is ensuring that every case that comes to it is looked at and considered, and that appropriate action is taken. It prioritises those that are of the greatest potential harm to children.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Home Secretary for the compassion and understanding she has displayed today towards the survivors, and for her drive in setting up the inquiry. The scope and nature of the inquiry are unprecedented and she has talked about a reasonable time scale, but it might take some time and, as she has recognised, child sex abuse is taking place today. Should not the panel therefore come forward with some recommendations early on to help stamp out this horrific child sex abuse? Will she give the panel an opportunity, perhaps via an interim report, to bring forward recommendations for her consideration?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I indicated in my statement in July that I expected the panel to publish an interim report before the general election, but obviously the time scales have since shortened. One of the things that I think the inquiry panel will want to look at, and that I believe it should look at, is the question of how it can report throughout the process on the work it is doing. I think that would reinforce the confidence that survivors and others can have in the process and allow the panel, if it comes across issues on which it feels action should be taken sooner rather than later, to report on them so that action can follow.

Michael Meacher: Is not an important dimension of this scandal—the Home Secretary signed off on all this—the fact that her Department made two utterly inappropriate, establishment-ridden appointments and then, to cap it all, drafted and redrafted a letter seven times in order to play down and disguise the relationship between Fiona Woolf and Lord Brittan, who was Home Secretary when all the Home Office files on this alleged Westminster and Whitehall child sex abuse mysteriously disappeared? Can she not understand that because of that background and despite her words today, which I welcome, she has already lost the confidence of much of the public about her capacity to conduct a highly sensitive inquiry of this kind in a properly objective and impartial manner?

Theresa May: I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. For example, he said that all the Home Office files relating to these matters have gone missing, but that is not the case; and he made a number of other references. All I will say in answer to his question is that I am not conducting this inquiry; I have established the inquiry, and I have done so because of my concern both about the historical cases and about the continuing cases of child abuse and child sexual exploitation in this country. We should be ashamed of what has happened in the past and, sadly, what we see happening on our streets today. The panel will be conducting what I believe is a once-in-a-generation inquiry that will give us the opportunity to recognise the problems and failings of the past and ensure that we address them so that in future fewer children will become victims of this appalling crime.

Andrew Bridgen: I acknowledge and welcome the huge cross-party support for this most important inquiry, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Home Secretary’s complaint that the Government have not been listening to the voices of victims would have rather more resonance had the inquiry been instituted under the previous Labour Government, rather than it falling to this Government to institute an investigation into child abuse?

Theresa May: I note the point my hon. Friend makes. I shall simply make two points in reply. First, it is this Government who have set up the inquiry, but I have commended the tone with which the shadow Home Secretary responded to my statement. Secondly, I think that the overwhelming view across the House is that we want the inquiry to get on and do its work.

Hywel Williams: In the 893 pages of the Waterhouse report on child abuse in north Wales, there are only five references to the Welsh language. All of them refer to various management issues, all are negative in tone, to varying degrees, and none relates directly to survivors’ experiences. In the spirit of listening properly to survivors, will the Home Secretary ensure that this new inquiry, whoever chairs it, gives proper and active consideration to the languages used by survivors, whether Welsh, English or community languages?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that has not been raised with me before. I would expect the panel inquiry to ensure that it is able to take
	evidence from all survivors who wish to give evidence to it, and to recognise that some may wish to give it in a language that is not English.

Tessa Munt: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and thank her for taking the time and trouble to consult my colleagues and me, and for recognising the importance of trust in the process. Will she expand a little on her thoughts about the six regional events and their place in the process, protecting survivors against what can be a slightly intrusive press, and making sure that services such as counselling are available to support them?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes some important points. The intention of the secretariat and panel in having the regional events is to ensure that the panel is more accessible for people across England and Wales, and to make it easier for people to give evidence. As I have said, we will also ensure that evidence can be given remotely, in recognition of the fact that some will find it difficult to come to a hearing. I also expect that the inquiry panel will want to look at the balance between the occasions it takes evidence in public and in private. Many survivors may wish to give their evidence in private, and I would expect the inquiry panel to recognise that and deal with it. The secretariat is talking to Department of Health officials about the counselling and support that should be available to victims, not just after they have given evidence but possibly before they give it too.

Sharon Hodgson: Following on from the previous question and from the welcome that has been given for the survivors liaison group, I know the Home Secretary said that further details are not yet available, but has she thought about what practical support will be available for survivors who want to travel to London to give evidence or to be part of the survivors liaison group, as well as the psychological support and counselling they may need when they have to relive and recount what was obviously a very traumatic experience?

Theresa May: Yes, we are indeed considering those aspects. It is commendable that the secretariat has already indicated that it wants to have some regional events, so that people do not have to come to London to give their views. Although it has announced a number of events over the coming months, given the length of the time the inquiry will take, I would expect that that is a matter it will return to. Everybody wants to ensure that survivors can give their input into the panel inquiry’s work, while recognising that for many it will be traumatic and difficult, and it will be necessary to build trust so that survivors feel able to come forward.

Philip Hollobone: To what extent have other countries undertaken historical child sex abuse inquiries, what are the key lessons to be learned, and has any nation ever embarked on as ambitious an inquiry as the Home Secretary has set out?

Theresa May: I am aware that some abuse inquiries have taken place in other countries, Australia being one that comes to mind. I cannot say what work the panel
	inquiry will look at; it might well wish to see whether lessons can be learned from work done elsewhere, as well as looking at the reviews that have taken place. I am not aware of another inquiry with such a wide breadth, in terms of the type of matter being dealt with or the historical span.

John Mann: Next week is one of these new parliamentary half-holiday weeks. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she will make a statement on the Wanless report so that Members of the House can ask her questions about it?

Theresa May: I will ensure that the Wanless report is available to Members of this House. As to whether I make a statement, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until business is announced as usual.

Mark Durkan: I know that the sensitivity expressed towards survivors extends also to the victims who unfortunately have not survived up to this point. The Home Secretary knows that many of us in Northern Ireland have not been persuaded by the line call in respect of Kincora. Regardless of whether people are giving evidence to the Hart inquiry or to the panel inquiry, who will make the call in relation to the Official Secrets Act? She has referred to agencies that will co-operate. Will those agencies control the evidence that might be given by former officers or agents, or will those people be able to give evidence to these inquiries on an unfettered, unfiltered basis?

Theresa May: As I said in response to an earlier question, we are currently in the process of looking at the protocols that will need to be in place to ensure that the evidence that needs to be available to these inquiries will be available.

Lilian Greenwood: My constituents who were subject to abuse at Beechwood and other children’s homes in Nottinghamshire have already waited long enough for their voices to be heard. I welcome the Home Secretary’s assurance that she will listen to survivors, but will she also ensure that Nottinghamshire police have sufficient resources to conduct their ongoing criminal investigations in a timely manner so that the survivors secure justice?

Theresa May: I recognise that a number of forces around the country are conducting investigations both into current issues of child abuse and historical cases. I have been discussing matters relating to resources with the national policing lead on such matters, who is Chief Constable Simon Bailey from Norfolk.

Stephen McCabe: I am sure that most people now want to see the inquiry proceed without any further setbacks. However, given the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the choice of persons to chair it, is the Home Secretary absolutely certain that all other members of the panel have been thoroughly checked and that there is nothing in their backgrounds or contacts that could lead people subsequently to question whether they are the right people to serve on it?

Theresa May: Of course, due diligence was done on the members of the panel. In addition, as I said earlier, each member of the panel has written to me with an indication as to whether they believe that there are contacts or other matters that would affect the inquiry that they are taking part in, and those letters are available.

Michael McCann: Nearly 900 men have made complaints to County Durham police force about the abuse they suffered as youngsters at Medomsley detention centre in the 1970s and 1980s. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry’s terms of reference will be wide enough to include an examination of Government-endorsed abuse such as the “short, sharp shock” treatment introduced by a previous Administration?

Theresa May: The inquiry panel will be looking at all the views and all the issues that have been raised in relation to historical child abuse. As I said, it is absolutely my intention to ensure that all Government Departments and agencies make sure that the inquiry panel has available any evidence that it wishes and needs to see in order to be able to undertake its duties properly and to look at the historical cases of child abuse but also the more recent cases of child abuse.

Angela Smith: Will the Home Secretary tell the House why the Home Office felt it necessary to remove a specific reference in the early drafts of Fiona Woolf’s letter to allegations of child sex abuse in Edinburgh?

Theresa May: The letter that I received from Fiona Woolf was the letter that she agreed and signed off, and ensured, as far as I am aware, that it was as transparent as possible to ensure that it contained all information that was appropriate.

Barry Gardiner: The Home Secretary has indicated that Fiona Woolf made her letter of disclosure available to the Department for review in order to ensure that she fulfilled her obligation for transparency. The problem the Department has is that, in the seven successive reiterations of that letter, it became less rather than more transparent. Will the Home Secretary ask the permanent secretary to interview the senior official in the Department who effected and initiated those changes in consultation with Fiona Woolf, and ensure that that civil servant can explain why those changes were suggested at each stage to Fiona Woolf and whether they did in fact increase or reduce transparency?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of assumptions about the process. I reiterate what I said earlier: Fiona Woolf wrote to me with the intention of being as transparent as possible about any issues and connections she felt it appropriate to refer to me. Obviously, it has been shown that the secretariat looked at a number of drafts. The letter that came to me was the letter that Fiona Woolf agreed.

Kerry McCarthy: On preventing future child abuse, the two cases of grooming I have dealt with during my time as an MP have both involved 15-year-old girls in relationships with men where the
	police and other agencies simply described them as having bad taste in boyfriends. It was almost as though there was a countdown to their 16th birthdays, when they thought they could wash their hands of them. Does the Home Secretary agree that, even if people present as being in a relationship, that is still clearly a case of child abuse and something we ought to be seeking to prevent?

Theresa May: That is another example of the issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey)—namely, an attitude to young people that has dismissed some instances. It could very well be the case that a girl of 15 is in an abusive relationship. If so, it needs to be considered as an abusive relationship and the allegations need to be considered properly, rather than simply dismissed because of the age of the individual. Everybody needs to recognise that there is an age of consent, below which people should look very seriously at the allegations made.

Debbie Abrahams: One of the conclusions of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) is that we need to address the cultural issues that underpin much of the abuse, including the sexualisation of children as young as primary school age. On that basis, will the Government reconsider their opposition to compulsory personal, social, health and economic education, including age-appropriate relationship and sex education?

Theresa May: I am having a number of discussions with the Department for Education and I understand that the Education Secretary is looking at the advice available in relation to PSHE. A number of issues that have been discussed in this House over time come under that particular heading. We all want to ensure that young people and children are being given appropriate advice and guidance.

Jeremy Corbyn: I commend the Home Secretary, particularly for her earlier remarks about assessing the credibility of the accusations rather than the credibility of either the accuser or the accused. That is a very important starting point. She also seemed to indicate that there would be a degree of interim reporting, which I welcome, because this is clearly going to be a massive undertaking. Does she envisage that the whole inquiry could turn into almost a standing commission? That might not be a bad thing, because it might be necessary in the longer term.
	Finally, in my own borough there have been complaints about Islington children’s homes in the past and the council has investigated them. The council is in a very different place now, but nevertheless it welcomes the inquiry and will co-operate with it. As the Home Secretary is fully aware, many of the children who were abused in children’s homes also went to homes in other parts of the country—in some cases to the Channel Islands. It is therefore very important that the inquiry is able to investigate across local authority administrative areas and, indeed, across jurisdictions to ascertain what happened, tragically, to many very vulnerable young children who were taken to homes in the Channel Islands.

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, especially his remarks on the willingness of Islington council to participate in the work of the inquiry. His idea
	of a standing commission has not been raised before. Although it will take time for the panel of inquiry to complete its work, I do not want there to be an expectation that it will just carry on because the impact of its report might be lost and, crucially, that would affect our ability to act on its findings. I expect the panel to make interim reports, as I said earlier, so that any necessary actions can be undertaken as soon as possible, and so that survivors and others can see the ongoing work and continue to have confidence in that work.

Gordon Marsden: The Home Secretary has rightly asked the Home Affairs Committee to conduct pre-appointment scrutiny. She also mentioned the involvement of survivors. Will she reflect on how the involvement of survivors in the selection process could be brought closer to the public part of the confirmation through the Select Committee to increase their confidence and our confidence that there will not be a third stumble along the way?

Theresa May: I will certainly reflect on the process that we will put in place for survivors to have an input. Ultimately, it will be my decision, but I am putting the parts of the process in place to ensure that people can have confidence that we have explored all the avenues that it is necessary to explore before proceeding.

Recall of MPs Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,
	That the Order of 21 October 2014 (Recall of MPs Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) In paragraph (2) of the Order (number of days for proceedings in Committee), for “three days” substitute “two days”.
	(2) In the Table in paragraph (4) of the Order (order of proceedings etc. in Committee), for the entries for the Second and Third days substitute:
	
		
			 Second day  
			 Clause 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 16, Schedules 3 to 5, Clauses 17 to 20, Schedule 6, Clauses 21 to 25, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill The moment of interruption on the second day 
		
	
	(3) In paragraph (5) of the Order (proceedings on Consideration), for “one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced” substitute “five hours after the commencement of the proceedings”.
	(4) In paragraph (6) of the Order (proceedings on Third Reading), for “at the moment of interruption on that day” substitute “six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration”.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Recall of MPs Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Clause 6
	 — 
	Petition officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
	Amendment 38, in clause7,page5,line27,leave out “maximum” and insert “minimum”
	This amendment changes the number of designated places for the signing of a recall petition from a maximum of four to a minimum of four.
	Clauses 7 to 10 stand part.
	That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
	Clauses 11 to 13 stand part.

Sam Gyimah: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Laing. For some reason, I suspect that today’s debate in Committee will be less excitable than Second Reading or the first day of Committee.
	The clauses and schedules in this group set out the process by which constituents can sign a recall petition, who is eligible to sign the petition and where the responsibility for running the process rests. I will summarise the effect of the provisions and address amendment 38, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), when I describe clause 7.
	Clause 6 provides that every constituency in the United Kingdom will have a petition officer and that the role will be fulfilled by the person who usually runs UK parliamentary elections in the constituency.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early on. He will know that in Northern Ireland, the chief electoral officer has huge responsibilities because we have Assembly elections and local council elections. Will any additional resources be given to the chief electoral officer and his staff so that he can be the petition officer under the Bill?

Sam Gyimah: Yes, it will be up to the local authority to provide additional staff to help the electoral officer fulfil their duties with regard to petitions. Petitions will be funded centrally through the Consolidated Fund, so returning officers will get the resources that they need to perform their role. We focus on the returning officer in that context because they have experience of running elections, and we believe that they have the necessary skills and experience to run the petition process.
	Clause 6 gives effect to schedule 1, which sets out the general duty of the petition officer in the conduct of the recall petition. It empowers them to appoint deputies, delegate their responsibilities, and claim expenses for running the petition.
	Clause 7 sets out the steps that a petition officer for a constituency must take on receiving the Speaker’s notice issued under clause 5. The petition officer must, as soon as reasonably practicable, designate
	“a place, or places, at which a recall petition is to be made available for signing”
	by constituents. They must designate
	“the 10th working day after the day on which the officer received the Speaker’s notice”
	as the first day on which the petition is open to be signed, unless that day is not practicable. In that case, in may be sensible to defer proceedings to the next day. The clause also requires the petition officer to make the petition available for signing in a maximum of four places, ensuring that venues selected have “reasonable facilities” for signing the petition, and are accessible to people with disabilities
	“so far as is reasonable and practicable”.
	Amendment 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, would make it a requirement for the petition officer to select a “minimum” of four places where the petition can be signed, and no maximum would be set on the number of places that could be selected. I can see the good intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that the process is accessible as possible. However, I reassure hon. Members that the Government have tried to address that concern, by accepting a recommendation from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee made during pre-legislative scrutiny that the number of signing places be increased from one to a maximum of four. Introducing a “minimum” requirement of four signing places and not setting a maximum number could result in an inconsistent approach across the country and increase costs. For example, my hon. Friend has 21 wards in his constituency and if he—perish the thought!—were subject to recall, the returning officer could decide on 21 signing places in his constituency. In constituencies such as Norwich North or Norwich South, for example, which are densely populated, there would be just one place to sign the petition because of that dense population.

David Heath: Will the Minister accept that there is a certain inconsistency about the geographical size of constituencies?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that takes me further into my argument. We are taking additional measures to ensure that the petition is as accessible as possible. For example, the petition period is eight weeks, so constituents have eight weeks to decide whether they want to sign it, and to make time to sign it at a time convenient to them. It is worth remembering that this process is very different to polling day. That takes place on one day, and therefore returning officers try to make as many places as possible accessible for constituents. I therefore urge the hon. Member for North East Somerset to withdraw his amendment.
	Clause 8 places a duty on the petition officer, in accordance with regulations under clause 18, to send a notice of petition to persons registered in the register of parliamentary electors for the constituency. That notice
	will serve a similar function to the poll card at elections, and set out how and in what ways electors can sign the petition if they wish. Importantly, clause 8 also specifies that the notice of petition must include information on the particular
	“recall condition which has been met in relation to the MP.”
	Petition officers will find the details of that condition specified in the Speaker’s notice issued under clause 5. Including that information on the notice of petition should help the recipient to understand why the recall petition has been opened, and to decide whether or not they wish to sign it.
	Clause 9 requires the petition officer to make the recall petition available for signing
	“at the designated place or places, and by post”
	for a period of eight weeks from the designated day, in accordance with regulations in clause 18.
	As I have said, the eight-week period has been chosen because it ensures that electors who wish to participate have sufficient time to consider information on the reasons for the recall petition, including the views of campaigners, and any public response given by the MP.

Jim Cunningham: Is there any particular reasons for eight weeks?

Sam Gyimah: The view is that eight weeks—roughly 40 working days—gives sufficient time, or even more than ample time, for constituents to engage properly with the process.
	Clause 8 details who is entitled to sign the recall petition. The general rule is that a person is who is eligible can sign the petition on any day during the eight-week signing period. They must be on the register of parliamentary electors and entitled to vote in a parliamentary election in the constituency as a result of an application made on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice.

Lady Hermon: I am very grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. I gently remind him that, after the 2001 general election, vote stealing in Northern Ireland was identified as a serious problem, particularly in Sinn Fein constituencies—that is a statement of fact and also a criticism. To deal with that serious problem, all those registered to vote must produce a photographic identity document. The Government have been good in producing free electoral ID cards, but will a person signing a recall petition be required to produce photographic ID?

Sam Gyimah: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention—she is welcome to intervene as much as possible. The petition signing process has been designed with general election voting in mind. In Northern Ireland, where voter ID must be produced, the petition process will require voter ID.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister clarify his point about the system working in the same way as a general election? What is his expectation of the opening hours for the petition? Try as I might, I cannot find any rules about how long it must be open. Will he set out the position?

Sam Gyimah: That is a very good question. We will set that out in regulations, but I anticipate that the voting hours will be similar to the voting hours in a polling booth on a general election day.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Minister, but if I understand him correctly, the Government are proposing to use a town hall or council office. As you will know from your constituency, Mrs Laing, that council office is not necessarily open from 7 am to 10 pm. Perhaps the Minister wants to rethink that answer.

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman mentions a town hall or local council office, but it is not necessarily for the Government to determine that. The petition officer will determine where the petition takes place and make the appropriate arrangements for the handling of that petition. That is not being prescribed in the Bill, as he says. I will try to get him further information on that point in due course.
	Other constituents will be able to take part in the petition process: anyone aged 18 years or over can do so, and so can anyone whose 18th birthday is before the end of the signing period. Clause 10 sets out that the last day on which a person can make an application to register as an elector, which will enable them to participate in the recall petition, is the day when the Speaker’s notice is issued. The electoral registration officer must determine such applications on or before the cut-off day, which is defined as the third working day before the beginning of the signing period. Such a cut-off mirrors practice at elections and ensures there is a point in time when the register is set and can be distributed to signing places to ensure that only those eligible to sign the petition can do so.
	Clause 10 gives effect to schedule 2, which inserts new section 13BC into the Representation of the People Act 1983, and which is on the alteration of registers of parliamentary electors and necessary amendments. The amendments are necessary to ensure the recall petition process can rely effectively on the register of parliamentary electors.
	I have received inspiration with regard to the question from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). Opening hours will be set out in regulations. Obviously, locations would not be open all hours, but there may be a possibility of their opening later. That will be a matter for the petition officer to determine, and will be set out in regulations.
	Clause 11, as I mentioned, establishes that electors will be able to sign the petition in person by post or by proxy.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Sam Gyimah: I detect another intervention.

Lady Hermon: It is very kind indeed of the Minister to invite an intervention before I am even on my feet. As I have indicated to the Committee, vote stealing in Northern Ireland was a very serious crime and had to be dealt with very seriously. For those who turn up in person to vote at a polling station there is a requirement for photographic identification. There are also very strict regulations on proxy voting and voting by post. Will equivalently strict measures be put in place to ensure that recall petitions do not result in an increase in vote stealing? It is such a serious crime.

Sam Gyimah: Once again, the hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. As I said, the practice has been designed to mirror the practice in general elections, so the same strict standards will apply to the petition process as one would ordinarily expect in the course of a general election.
	Clause 11 allows electors to sign the petition in person by post or by proxy. The entitlement to sign the petition by a particular method will be subject to regulations to be made under clause 18, which will set out the process in more detail. It is worth noting that once a recall petition has been signed the signature cannot be withdrawn. That is the usual way that public petitions are administered. It could undermine the process and cause confusion if electors were allowed to withdraw their signatures from a recall petition at a later date.
	Clause 12 sets out that it is an offence for two or more signatures to be added to the petition by, or on behalf of, any individual elector, just as in elections it is an offence for two or more votes to be cast by, or on behalf of, an individual elector. The Government believe it is important that the recall petition process is secure. Systematic fraud would be hard to orchestrate at an election. The provisions are necessary to deter any attempts at double signing to inflate the number of signatures in a petition. The provisions should also give constituents confidence in the result of the petition.
	Clause 13 sets out three conditions in which the recall petition process will be terminated before the end of the eight-week signing period. The conditions that would trigger an early termination are: the date of the next UK parliamentary general election being brought forward to a date that falls within the six-month period of the date of the Speaker’s notice; if an MP’s seat is vacated, for example because the MP is disqualified; and where the first recall condition was met and the MP’s conviction or sentence, or the order in question, is overturned on appeal.

Thomas Docherty: I apologise—I perhaps should have raised this point with the Minister in advance—but I have being going backwards and forwards between clauses 3 and 13. As I understand it, clause 3 states that the recall petition shall not take place—I apologise if I am incorrect—until the appeals have expired. Is it therefore not a contradiction for clause 13(4) to say that the recall shall fall if the conviction is subsequently overturned on appeal?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman makes a very smart point. He is clearly reading the Bill in detail, as he should. The distinction relates to “in time” and “out of time” appeals. The explanatory memorandum refers to some appeals that could be out of time and could therefore be overturned when the recall petition has already started.
	As I was saying, electors will be less likely to sign the petition knowing that they will shortly be able to have their say at the ballot box, thereby impacting on the overall objective of the recall petition. That is why the petition will not be taken forward under those circumstances. The second and third conditions—that the seat is already vacant and that the conviction has been overturned on appeal—are clearly appropriate reasons for terminating the petition early.
	In summary, I have set out why the clauses and schedules in this group are necessary, as they establish who can sign a petition and how. The provisions ensure that petitions will be administered by those with experience of running elections and in a manner consistent with the rigours of an electoral process.
	Let me return to the issue of Northern Ireland for a second before finishing. The same protections on voter ID will apply in Northern Ireland. In relation to postal signatures, this would be available on demand in Northern Ireland, unlike for elections, because we consider that signing a petition in person may raise different issues from casting a secret ballot.

Lady Hermon: For the sake of clarity, can the Minister sum up what the position is now in Northern Ireland for someone who wishes to go and vote in person? They will be required, as in a general election, to produce photographic ID and if they do not turn up in person, the same rules for proxy and postal voting will definitely pertain, to ensure that we do not have vote stealing again in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I do not think that is what he said either. Indeed, that was what I was hoping the Minister had said to me, but I have a horrible feeling that it was not what he confirmed.

Sam Gyimah: The advice I have received is that the same protections on voter ID will apply in Northern Ireland. In relation to postal signatures, this will be available on demand in Northern Ireland, unlike for elections, because we recognise that signing a petition in person may raise different issues from casting a secret vote. The position is therefore slightly different from what I said earlier.

Lady Hermon: I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for repeating the explanation that floated across the Chamber to him to correct what was said earlier. I must invite him to go back and look at the evidence taken after the general election about the serious problem with postal voting in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Belfast West and other Sinn Fein constituencies. They had something like three times as many postal votes as any other constituencies throughout the UK, so provisions were introduced swiftly to deal with vote stealing, particularly where it involved postal votes rather than impersonation.

Sam Gyimah: I appreciate the point the hon. Lady is making; I am happy to have a look at it, assess the situation, see whether what we are discussing has any bearing on the issues she has outlined and write back to her.
	I commend these clauses and schedules to the Committee.

Wayne David: I want to make a few brief comments and ask the Minister some questions about clause 6 and schedule 1, and clauses 7 and 9. These provisions relate, as he said, to the petition officers who will be appointed.
	My questions are about the costs incurred in this process. The Bill is non-specific and refers to the condition that
	“the total of the officer’s charges does not exceed the amount…specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister”.
	However, one of the interesting things about the Bill is that it is accompanied by a detailed impact assessment, which goes into such meticulous detail on the likely costs incurred during the process that it lists the estimated total costs of one recall petition, which include the cost for the petition officer, at £500, the cost of the petition signing place, at £734, and the cost of the petition notice card, at £20,891. I was wondering why, if that much work has been done, the Government are waiting for secondary legislation. Why not build it directly into the Bill, so we could see exactly the cost that is likely to be incurred? If we are committed to secondary legislation, when are we going to see the provisions for it coming forward? Will it be done quickly? I presume it will be, because if the work has been done, I see no reason at all why it cannot be brought forward immediately. Perhaps it is, in reality, already available and could be presented to us.
	My second point relates to clause 7, which refers to a “maximum of 4 places” where the petition can be signed. To his credit, the Minister has said that he has taken into account the opinions of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but why has he not taken into account the representations made, not just by the mover of the amendment, but by the Electoral Commission? The Electoral Commission has provided a circular, which has gone to all Members. It says that it sees no reason why there should be “a maximum of four” places in which to go and vote, suggesting there should be “a minimum of four” places. It makes the very good point that our constituencies vary enormously in their size and geography, so four places might be appropriate for a compact constituency, but nowhere near enough for more rural constituencies.

Kevan Jones: I imagine that, for the Western Isles or even parts of rural County Durham, four places would be quite inappropriate because people would have to travel long distances. In common with my hon. Friend, I cannot understand why we are having a maximum of four rather than a minimum of four places.

Wayne David: That is precisely the point; my hon. Friend puts it very well. Surely, given the extreme variation in the geographic nature of UK constituencies, it makes good sense to have a degree of flexibility. It would be very unfair, for example, if certain voters in large, geographically dispersed constituencies with a difficult geography felt that they were being excluded from a democratic process that we know has excited a great deal of public interest. I would be grateful if the Minister responded not just to what I am saying, but to what the Electoral Commission has said after taking the trouble to circulate information to all Members.
	My third point relates to clause 9. The Electoral Commission has queried the wisdom of the Government’s stating on the face of the Bill the wording of the petition, suggesting that it would be far better to have a process of testing among electors to see what words would be most appropriate, most effective and best understood. I think that is a very fair point. We have seen in previous legislation, such as the recent Bill on the EU referendum, that the form of words used makes a big difference to the impression created for the electorate; and we want them to make a fair and objective choice about the pros and cons of a given situation as conveyed in a question.
	I would personally question whether the Government have chosen the best form of words. Let me cite clause 9(4), which states:
	“By signing in the box below, you are signing a petition for [name of the MP], the MP for [name of constituency], to lose [his/her] seat in the House of Commons”.
	I question whether “to lose” is the best phrase to employ. Would not “to no longer continue” be better? It might make a difference to the way in which many people cast their vote. The only sure method of testing that would be an exercise involving a representative cross-section of people to see how they responded to different forms of words. That is important, because words are not simply objective statements per se. They can have certain implications, and lead to certain inferences. The word “lose” might strike some people as excessively strong, and might dissuade them from casting a positive vote.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend is making a good point. The MP in question might not lose his or her seat following the signing of the petition. If a by-election followed, it would be up to the electorate to decide. If a very small number of people wanted to destabilise an MP, this would be the way to do it.

Wayne David: That, too, is a good point, which deserves careful consideration. I think we all know from our experience of various referendums in the past that the words that are used on a ballot paper can be very important indeed. I think that the Government should recognise that what they need to do is consult the people, and come back later with a properly thought through and broadly acceptable measure.

Kevan Jones: We should bear in mind what has happened in the United States, where so much pressure is put on people who feel that they have done nothing wrong, or have been challenged because of their policy positions, that they resign at that point, and do not stand in the subsequent recall election. The phraseology in the Bill could be used in the same way. The pressure put on individuals could be so great that they would give up before the by-election even if they had done nothing wrong.

Wayne David: That concern was expressed during our last sitting, and it is a concern felt by many people in the House and beyond. We need a democratic process in which people can have confidence, and which fulfils a proper function. We do not want the Bill to be used, indeed abused, as a vehicle enabling external interests, perhaps well financed, to put undue pressure on democratically elected representatives.
	I am pleased to say that the extremely well-prepared impact assessment refers to the costs that would be incurred for the Welsh translation of recall petition documents. It is estimated that the cost of a petition in one of the Welsh constituencies would be £100. I welcome that information, because—casting my mind back not too far—I remember that there was quite a hoo-hah in the House when the Government forgot that bilingual ballot papers would be needed for the elections of police and crime commissioners. Some of us said to the
	Government at the time that we thought it very likely that secondary legislation would be necessary. We were told “We have consulted our expert lawyers, and they have said that there is no need for it.” However, the expert lawyers were wrong, as is often the case, and there was a need for legislation at the last moment—literally just before the PCC elections. However, because the Government had made a mistake, they had to have extra forms produced in English in Wales just in case there was not enough time to get the new secondary legislation on to the statute book. The result was that at the end of the day the Government simply wasted £130,000 of taxpayers’ money because they would not take advice from us.
	My question is: have the Government, in recognising the need for bilingual documentation, actually given due consideration this time to bringing forward secondary legislation for that to happen? I suggest it is not enough for the Government simply to say, “We can do it if we want to.” They may well have to have secondary legislation, as was the case with the police and crime commissioner elections.
	With those few words and few questions, I ask the Minister, at an appropriate time, to respond.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a great pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship in the Chamber, Sir Roger, rather than being hidden away in a dark corner of the House.
	I have a very modest amendment to bring forth: amendment 38, which I hope the Committee will consider. All I am doing is changing one word. I am changing the word “maximum” to “minimum”, so I am in fact changing only two letters; I am changing “ax” to “in”, so we are axing “ax” and bringing in “in.” The reason for doing so is because I am a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith): I think that if we are going to have recall we should do it properly, and if we are going to do it properly we should do it generously, and if we are going to do it generously, it should be easy for people to exercise their right under it.

Kevan Jones: I know the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is unable to be here today through illness, but in the argument he was putting forward last week in Committee he championed the fact that people would have to turn up to one place to sign the petition, arguing that that would somehow make it very difficult to achieve the threshold. Is the hon. Member for Richmond Park now saying that that was not the case?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and he kindly added his name to the list; indeed it appears immediately beneath mine on this amendment, so yes, indeed, it does have his support, which I am very grateful for. It is a recognition of the difference between constituencies and the fact that this point is already provided for in other areas of legislation. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said and he made some very important points in saying that there may be discrepancies between one constituency and another and raising the issues of cost.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. The point the hon. Member for Richmond Park was arguing last week was that because people would have to turn up in person to one point—the town hall, for example—his proposed provisions would not often be used. Is the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) now saying that the hon. Member for Richmond Park is arguing we should have multiple centres to make it easier for people to take part in a recall?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to make arguments for somebody who is not here, which is a wonderfully hypothetical approach to be taking. I must make my own arguments for what I believe about this Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will make his arguments when he is here, as he did so eloquently last week in favour of his amendments to the Bill. I must focus on my amendment 38, and its purpose, however. I hope that clarifies the matter, Sir Roger.
	I was saying that I completely understood what the Minister was saying on the issues of differentiation between constituencies and cost, but the first point is accepted in all our elections anyway, and is accepted in legislation that this very Government passed. The legislation providing uniform constituencies made exceptions for the very largest geographical areas, because it recognised that it is unreasonable not to make different arrangements for those beyond a certain size. Therefore, when there are thousands and thousands of acres—sometimes into the thousands of square miles—we make different arrangements from those that we have for the much smaller, more compact constituencies.
	I do not fully accept the Minister’s point about cost. Clause 18 provides Ministers with considerable powers to make regulations affecting the opening hours of the places where the petition may be signed. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has raised this matter in the past. In my view, it would therefore be possible for people to sign the petitions in local post offices during their opening hours. This would involve minimal cost, while giving constituents in the larger geographical areas easier access to the process.
	This is important because the difference in size between the constituencies is extreme. I have here a little list, at the top of which is Ross, Skye and Lochaber, whose area is 4,709 square miles. That is a little over 3 million acres, which is three times the size of the county of Somerset. To have only four places in such a vast area would place an unreasonable constraint on people’s ability to exercise the democratic right that we are proud to be giving them. We should be positive about the Bill; it is a good thing to allow constituents to have greater control over their Members of Parliament. Access to the process would be very easy in the smallest constituency, Islington North, which has an area of only 2.8 square miles. Such a constituency would hardly need more than one place, because it would not be too difficult for people to get around, unlike in Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
	In my own area, God’s own county of Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—whom I am happy to see in his place—represents an area of 367 square miles. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is even bigger, with an area of 417 square miles.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on his geography lesson, which is very interesting. I know that he will have read the Bill from cover to cover, and he will know that the Minister has confirmed that there will be an option to vote by post or by proxy instead of turning up and signing a petition in person. So why is he campaigning for a minimum of four locations in which people can sign? Should he not be encouraging people to make use of the postal service and to spend money on second-class postage?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I rather agreed with the hon. Lady when she expressed her concern about the difficulties of voting by post. It has become much too easy and is susceptible to high levels of fraud, and I do not believe that that is a problem only in Northern Ireland. It is increasingly a problem in England, and probably in Wales and Scotland as well. We have heard about the problems in Birmingham; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has made regular references to them. I would therefore prefer people to be able to go somewhere physically and add their name to a list.

Kevan Jones: It is a Daily Mail myth that postal vote fraud is rampant. When the Electoral Commission ran its all-postal-vote pilots in, I think, 2006, it found that there was not widespread fraud, although there were problems in certain communities.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There are undoubtedly greater difficulties with postal voting. My major concern is that it undermines the secrecy of the ballot. When ballot papers go into people’s homes, they are likely to be seen as a family affair, in contrast to the secrecy involved in going into a corner of a polling station to vote. As I was saying in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I believe that it is better for people to turn up to vote in person and that that should be facilitated. That would reduce the need for excessive postal voting.
	I shall not go through all the constituencies on my list, but I should point out that my own has an area of 122 square miles, or about 85,000 acres. That is about the maximum area that could conveniently have only four registration places. Such an arrangement would simply be unreasonable in a bigger constituency, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome.
	There is a broader point to make: the rural areas often get forgotten. There is a polling station in my constituency that is in somebody’s porch. About 85 people go to vote there. There are even smaller polling stations across the country; some have only a couple of dozen electors who are eligible to vote in them. We used to make it easy for people to turn up and vote, and if we are introducing new democratic rights, we ought to make it similarly easy for people to turn up and exercise them.
	We should think about the rural areas: there have fewer people, but their democratic rights are just important as those of people who live in dense urban areas, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) so rightly said. There are differences between constituencies, and we recognise them in other ways. In passing, it is worth mentioning the great county of Yorkshire, which has a
	particularly large number of seats that cover large areas and have small populations. Yorkshire has more acres than there are words in the Bible, if the Apocrypha is excluded, and it is divided into very large geographical constituencies. Again, each of them ought to have more than four places for people to go to. I hope that the Government will listen on this matter, and understand the need for rural populations to exercise their rights as freely, properly and easily as the urban mass population.

Kevan Jones: I want to comment on amendment 38, which the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just spoken to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), I am generally sympathetic to the idea that having a maximum of four places would be disadvantageous and totally impractical in some large rural constituencies. In the Western Isles, for example, there would have to be a decision about which islands should have such a place. There is a genuine need for the Government to consider that problem.

Thomas Docherty: Is my hon. Friend aware that unlike for an election, where the returning officer is required to consult the political parties regularly about the location of such places, I understand that there is no specific requirement for the petition officer to consult political parties about the location of these offices?

Kevan Jones: I was about to come on to that. The interesting thing is that even though the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) argued last week that recall would be used on very few occasions, he supports amendment 38 because it would be so difficult for everyone to go to one place.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has said, if there are more than the maximum of four, there needs to be some regulation or control over the number of places, otherwise a different situation may arise. I remember one council in the north-east where a certain person was in control of the location of polling stations, and it seemed as though there was one on every street corner in her ward. The hon. Member for North East Somerset told us that the amendment is designed to increase democratic turnout, but as in such a case, putting one on every street corner could be used to encourage people to oppose an MP.
	I sympathise with the view that a maximum of four places is too prescriptive, but there must be some regulation or control for such places, otherwise a petition officer might be put under undue political pressure locally to have dozens and dozens of sites to make it as easy as possible for people to secure a recall. The Government need to change the provision, but they also need to add some guidance or regulations alongside it, because otherwise there will be abuses of the system. Having large numbers of these places might be designed to encourage people to turn out deliberately to undermine and remove the Member of Parliament not for any democratic reason, but for political reasons.

David Heath: I want to make a few observations on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and on some of the clauses in this group.
	My first observation relates to the number of places at which people can sign the petition. It seems to me completely impossible to equate the notion of fair access across the country with setting a maximum of four places for constituents such as mine, as my hon. Friend correctly said. It takes me about an hour and a quarter to drive from one end of my constituency to the other. Were there very few places, that would effectively disfranchise those who wish to attend a place of signing in person from being able to do so. Obviously, such an issue does not apply in urban or suburban constituencies, but it certainly does in the wide open spaces of rural constituencies, some of which are represented in the Chamber this evening.
	The hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned those constituencies that contain islands. Obviously, it is even more difficult to get from one island to another to place one’s name on a petition. For the sake of equity, the availability and the access of these places for petitioning need to be roughly the same for different categories of electors in different parts of the country. That will not happen if we have a maximum of four places in a very large rural constituency. There is also a common misapprehension in this place that we all have access to public transport—I am talking about our electors who do not own or have access to private cars. I keep having to remind people that in my village we have not one bus an hour or one bus every five minutes, but one bus a week. If someone catches that bus, but does not catch it back again, they are stuck and they will not return home for some time. They have to make sure that they take a sleeping bag with them or have access to a hotel. So let us bear in mind the different geography of the country.
	There is also a political issue here. If we have a limited number of physical places where people can sign these petitions, where those places are situated may affect the outcome of the petition. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will probably agree that there are some Northern Ireland constituencies where it would matter a great deal where the place was that someone had to go to sign the petition. But that is generally true of many constituencies. Hard as it is to believe, there are areas that will be broadly supportive of a Member of Parliament, and some that will be less broadly supportive. There is an outcome issue that needs to be considered. I hope that the Minister will take that away and look at it again to see whether a better solution can be found.
	I was slightly alarmed by the laissez-faire attitude to opening times, because that is yet another area that is potentially open to abuse. The sensible thing would be for the officer in charge to take advice from the Electoral Commission as to the appropriate signing place and the appropriate opening hours for the area in question. By doing that, we may get a more satisfactory outcome.
	Clause 9 deals with the wording of a petition signing sheet. The hon. Member for Caerphilly made a good point. I cannot see why the wording is in primary legislation. Under the Representation of People Act 1983, such detail is usually done through secondary legislation. In addition, I do not understand why subsection (4) says:
	“The wording of a petition signing sheet must include the following”.
	The implication is that the wording may include a whole lot of other things that the Minister does not wish to prescribe. I am slightly concerned about why, when we are very prescriptive about what appears on a ballot paper, we are so laissez-faire about something that may influence to a much greater extent a person’s decision on whether they wish to sign a petition.
	Will the Minister also carefully examine the last sentence of subsection (4), because it is very clumsy? The liberal use of the Oxford comma, which I would normally applaud, makes the sentence difficult to understand. It states:
	“If less than 10% of eligible registered electors in the constituency sign the petition, the MP will not lose [his/her] seat, and a by-election will not be held, as a result of the petition.”
	I did not table an amendment, but I ask him to examine that. If he is going to do this at all, after the words
	“the MP will not lose [his/her] seat”
	he might just finish the sentence by saying “therefore, no by-election will be held”. That would be a little more understandable for most people reading the provision and trying to work out what on earth it means, because the current wording gives a contrary impression.

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the eloquent points he is making. Given that the ballot paper is very important, being the direct interface between the voter and the end result, whatever that may be, would it not be far better, even at this late stage, if the Government simply accepted this basic point, which the Electoral Commission is also making, withdrew this provision and returned to this, as he says, through regulation?

David Heath: I do think that, because I have had the great pleasure, during nearly 18 years in this House, of serving on innumerable statutory instrument Committees and considering the wording of ballot papers and the like through statutory regulation. That seems to me the much more appropriate way to get it right. Such an approach might also deal with the specific issue about the Welsh language. I seem to recall, although I might be wrong, that we have on occasion examined the Welsh language version of what appears on a ballot paper as well, and it is prescribed; it is not left to someone to translate it as they choose. So the hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Government would be well advised to remove the prescription in this clause and say, “The Minister may, by regulation, prescribe the words that will appear on the petition signing sheets.” That will allow the Government to go away, talk to the Electoral Commission, get the words right and come back with a regulation that provides for that.
	The last point I wish to make relates to postal and proxy votes, about which the hon. Member for North Down makes an incredibly important point. I cannot see why the regulations on applying for a postal or proxy vote, and for the execution of such a vote in an election, should be any different from those used for the petition. These things are equally important to our electoral and democratic process, so I would like to think that whatever applies to one will apply to the other, to ensure that we have a proper level of checking.

Kevan Jones: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is there not a slight difference? In an election someone gets sent a ballot paper but they would not be sent a ballot paper to say, “Do you want to sign this petition or not?” The two are slightly different.

David Heath: I am not clear what the process is. The hon. Gentleman may well have more information on this than I do currently, but I am not clear how the postal and proxy vote system will work in respect of a petition. The people registered for a postal or proxy vote for an election may not be the same people who would wish to exercise their right to such a vote in the case of a petition. Some people, particularly those who do not have a petition signing place within half an hour’s drive or a three-day bus journey from where live, may well want to exercise a postal or proxy vote, whereas for an election they can just toddle down to the village hall or an outbuilding of the local pub to cast their vote. So a different group of people may well be involved, and I would like to know what the process will be.

Kevan Jones: This is also about knowing what the process would be to ensure that the signature being sent in is authentic. Since we had the change on applying for a postal vote, a signature and a date of birth is required, and I understand that the signatures are scanned and have to match. If someone has just written on small piece of paper that they want a recall and they send it in, is that good enough? How do we verify that the signature is from a legitimate person, one who might not have applied for a postal vote?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right about that. We all have experience of petitions where we look down the names and find people who are perhaps not resident in our constituencies, because they happen to be otherwise employed in a theme park in Orlando or as President of the United States; there are all sorts of reasons why they are not legitimate electors of our constituencies, but nevertheless the names have been appended. I believe the Minister’s answer to that is simply, “We have introduced an offence of providing a false signature in the Bill.” That is not a sufficient deterrent, as we know because we have seen the evidence for that many times. So we need some sort of checking procedure to make sure that when Mr Michael Mouse signs a petition it is the Mr Michael Mouse who is a resident of Railway cuttings, Cheam or a relevant address rather than a Mr Michael Mouse who may be a figment of someone’s imagination.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The signatures and names and addresses are not going to be published in the public domain, so how does anybody challenge whether the signature sent in asking for a petition is genuine? I am sure that during his 18 years in the House he has had many petitions where he has written back to people who then deny ever signing a petition. There has to be a procedure in place to ensure that there is at least some public scrutiny of those signatures. If there is not, the 10% threshold could be reached with bogus signatures.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is of course absolutely right. Indeed, people sometimes forget that they have clicked to add their name to a letter that the computer generated the day before. When we contact them they know nothing about what they have apparently just written to us about in great detail and about which they feel passionately. We all encounter that; it is not an unusual experience. He and I share the view that we need safeguards to make sure that the names that appear are the right ones. There is, however, one point
	where I will disagree with him. He is still fighting the good fight about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) when he talks about the possibilities of people harassing a Member using this process. The two triggers we have at the moment—criminal conviction and the 21-day suspension —are very limited. Some of us believe the provision should be wider than that and there should be at least one more trigger, and we will pursue that, but I do not think it is open to the sort of abuse he suggests. I therefore see no reason why we should not make it as easy as possible for people to sign a petition if that is what they choose to do, where those trigger points have been satisfied. With that, I shall be interested in hearing what others have to say.

Mark Durkan: First, I rise to speak in support of amendment 38, which seems to make a reasonable point, one I understood the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) supported: whatever the trigger points for a petition, there certainly had to a be a sufficient number of places for people to go, particularly in a far-flung constituency, but the petition points would not replicate the number of polling stations or anything else like that. The point was being made that the petition points should not be so numerous or diverse as to create a wide open situation and be much more difficult to manage, particularly given that a period of time is being offered for the petition to be signed. Unlike a single day, polling day, for voting, a designated period, which some of us think is too long, is provided for in the petition. It gives people ample time to keep the thing going in a way that could be politically debilitating to a constituency or a city.
	There are issues with the details of the clauses. Even those of us who differ on whether there should be more than the very limited trigger points provided for in the Bill recognise that a petitioning system for recall must work well and credibly. Once there is a whiff of scandal or abuse in relation to one recall, the response might be to abandon recall altogether, so none of us should want sloppy reform, or it will be unsustained.
	On amendment 38, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made an intervention. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) suggested, in the context of Northern Ireland, one would need to consider not just the mileage in geographic terms, but the neutrality or accessibility of locations. That might include geopolitical considerations and sensitivities, the colour of kerbstones, the presence of flags and other imagery and so on. In addition, there is the need to ensure that locations are accessible by public transport, if constituents have more by way of public transport arrangements than the hon. Gentleman. That would be hugely important.
	Gathering the petition is not just a matter of designating the points; there needs to be good management. Other hon. Members have asked whether there will be variability or an easy come, easy go approach to timing. People would want to know that petition points were managed properly and efficiently, and that if queries arose, there was someone in the position of presiding officer to talk to.
	There is also the question of how one signs the petition. It has been suggested that it will be an offence to sign a wrong name. Is somebody going to be watching every name that is signed? In current elections using ballot papers, people are free to spoil their vote. People could well put a spoiled entry on a petition form, but they could do so in a way that spoils other people’s entries as well, so there are issues relating to the management and policing of the petition process.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but in Northern Ireland, I think, voters must show ID. In the UK they do not. What is there to stop someone putting someone else’s name on a petition? If the list of names and addresses is not made public, how could anyone challenge an entry and say, “I didn’t sign that petition”? That is a weakness. Even if, in the UK, a presiding officer is present, there is no guarantee of the identity of the person signing.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman raises another significant point in the Northern Ireland context. Yes, ID is required in order to vote. In a proper recall system, just as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested in respect of postal and proxy votes, the same standard should apply to them in relation to recall as would apply in relation to elections and ballot papers, and similarly as regards voter ID in Northern Ireland. If somebody is coming to take the power of a voter in respect of a recall petition, they should have to present the same provable ID as is required in respect of an election. It is not particularly arduous and people have got used to the system. There is the electoral ID card, which covers people who do not have the other forms of ID.

Kevan Jones: I agree that in Northern Ireland that provision is in place, but in the rest of the UK it is not. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that people wishing to sign a recall petition in my constituency or any other constituency in the UK would have to provide some type of ID. Even if they did, because the names will not be made public, there is no way to challenge their authenticity. It is no good saying that signing a fictitious name is an offence. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience in Northern Ireland, voter fraud used to be quite widespread.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman’s point gives rise to the question of location. Whether there is a minimum or a maximum of four locations, can people freely choose, turn up to any of them and register their signature on the petition? Will there be anybody to check there and then whether they are eligible? Many people may be unsure who their MP is or which constituency they are in. When it comes to setting up petition points, somebody should be in a position to verify that people are eligible to sign the petition by virtue of being on the register for that constituency, whether there is a particular geographic catchment for that constituency or an overall register for the constituency. That would need to be managed by way of regulation or other instruments. We cannot take care of all that in the Bill.
	I have some sympathy with the points made about clause 9 and the language of the petition. That does not need to be in the Bill. There are also questions about the couching of that language and the need to make it
	clearer. Whereas on polling day people have to garner a significant amount of support to be successful, those who are mobilising behind a petition have to get only 10% in a constituency over a long period of weeks. It is not a high challenge that they are set. In those circumstances, it is not too much to expect that voters who are being given that opportunity should make sure that they are eligible to sign the petition. I think the test should be higher than 10%, which is why I supported the three-stage proposal from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
	Whichever version of recall petition we are discussing and at whatever stage it takes effect on either model, people should know that the process surrounding the petition is managed properly. If they think petitions are managed in a way that falls short of what they would expect at election time, we are inviting a culture of abuse. I hope the Government will consider the arguments, which will be supported both by those who broadly support the scope of the Bill that the Government have provided and by those who would challenge it. All of us want to know that if there is to be a petition process, it will be durable and reliable.

Thomas Docherty: May I first welcome the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to his place? I understand that yesterday in the south-west he was seen on television but not heard. This evening we have had the benefit of both seeing him and hearing his wisdom. I shall deal first with a number of the points he made before turning my attention to the rest. He talked about minimum versus maximum and explained that he was looking to change only two letters, which perhaps is a new record, even for his minimalist approach. However, I am slightly surprised that he tabled the amendment: I know him to be a great believer in parliamentary process, yet he is seeking to overturn the advice of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Although we recognise the strength of his argument, we were slightly surprised to see him going against his colleagues.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I take the view that the Chamber is the final and highest authority.

Thomas Docherty: I thought the hon. Gentleman took the view that Her Majesty was the final authority; he is obviously becoming a republican in his older age.
	We have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He was right to talk about having two constituencies side by side, or indeed one surrounding the other—I think that his constituency completely surrounds that of Bath—and made some valid points about the square mileage and number of hectares in each. We do not necessarily agree that the situation differs for rural and urban constituencies. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) pointed out, that would be determined more by public transport links, particularly the provision of bus services.
	None the less, we think that the hon. Member for North East Somerset has raised a valid point. For example, we are concerned that Ministers are not at this stage able to give us greater clarity about opening hours, and that relates to a broader point. I refer the House to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, which set out a concern about the use of Henry VIII powers. That simply means that the Government are
	seeking to state in primary legislation that all the detail will be covered by secondary legislation, and they have not yet had a chance to set out those provisions.
	We are concerned that the Government do not have a clear position on opening hours. There is an argument that opening hours should be from 7 am to 10 pm, as they are in a general election. Equally, however, if the Government are proposing ultimately to use city chambers, town halls and council offices, perhaps it would unreasonable to require additional opening hours over an eight-week period. My understanding is that central Government would pick up those costs, rather than individual local authorities, so I wonder whether the Minister, if he receives inspiration before having to reply, could say when the Government worked out the £55,000 cost of running a recall petition. Was that based on opening hours of 9 am to 5 pm in up to four locations, or opening hours of 7 am to 10 pm?
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raised an important point about security—if I recall correctly, she made the same point last week during the Committee’s first day of considerations. The Government must accept that clearly more work needs to be done to answer those points. Several hon. Members have made the point, rightly I think, that the Government are yet to set out whether in practice they would use a marked register. If we take the example of having just one location for signing a recall petition—I am conscious that we are in danger of slipping into consideration of clause 18, but this relates to the question of where a petition can be signed—is it the Government’s intention that the petition officer would be sitting with the marked register and would cross off constituents’ names as they sign the petition, or would it not be made available?

Kevan Jones: I suggest that without it the process would be completely open to fraud, because anyone could go in and sign the petition, and nobody would ever know if those names and addresses were just made up.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We think that there are concerns about validity. The Member of Parliament and his or her supporters have a right, not unreasonably, to look at the marked register to ensure that there has not been fraud. Equally, the petitioners who organise a recall petition have a right to look at it. As in an election, we would be able to tell whether a person had voted, but not how they had voted. I hope that the Government will think carefully about that.
	I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will not press his amendment to a vote this evening, but I also hope that the Government will be gracious enough to promise to look at all these concerns again and, at least before the Bill goes to the Lords, come back with more substantive proposals on the type of petition station, opening hours and the issue of security. I believe that Ministers are genuinely acting in good faith, but I hope that they appreciate that we simply cannot allow all this to be done through secondary legislation.
	One suggestion put to me some time ago was that an order should be laid at the start of each Parliament, stating that in North East Somerset, for example, there would be six places where constituents could sign the
	petition, that there would be seven in East Surrey, and four in Dunfermline and West Fife. The other issue is that the opening hours for polling stations at a general election are set in legislation, but nowhere can I find the opening hours for recall petitions, and that needs to be sorted out.

Kevan Jones: That suggestion would not get around the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the importance of where the petition stations are located. For example, if all the stations in his constituency were based in Orange lodges, I am sure that he and others would have something to say about it.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you will forgive me, Sir Roger, if I do not speculate about the popularity or otherwise of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in the various Orange lodges of his constituency—going down that path would not end well for any of us in the Chamber. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is absolutely right that careful consideration has to be given. Again, we have not had enough detail. We are working from a series of assumptions about petition stations being in council offices and polling stations, but Ministers have not set out in any detail where they are likely to be.
	Finally, in relation to my earlier point about consultation, there is a requirement for returning officers to consult at least with political parties and other interested parties on the siting of polling stations, and indeed on the boundaries of polling stations within electoral wards. We have not yet seen anything that would explicitly require the petition officer at least to consult. There is more work to be done on that issue.
	We also have concerns about proxy and postal votes. The Minister might like to say a little more about why existing postal voters will still have to write in to request a postal vote, rather than simply being issued a petition form by post. I press the Minister to give us some satisfaction in that regard. Will he also confirm that there is often a last-minute flurry of activity to join the electoral register? I appreciate that he has made it clear that one has to be on the register at the trigger date, but often there can be a slight administrative delay, as we saw in the recent referendum in Scotland. Can he confirm that the application, rather than its processing, will be taken as the cut-off point as there can sometimes be a few days’ backlog?

Sam Gyimah: Welcome, Sir Roger, to the Chair. A number of very good points have been made and I shall deal with them. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made many interesting points, and asked why the Bill does not go into the same level of detail regarding expenses. The AV referendum process and the petition process mirror a referendum process, rather than a general election process. The AV referendum gave us some hard facts to work with.

Kevan Jones: In an AV referendum, postal voters would be sent a ballot paper. Here, we are asking people to come forward to sign a petition. Those are completely different things, and they are getting confused in this debate.

Sam Gyimah: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point, he will realise that I was speaking specifically about expenses. We have used the hard facts that the AV referendum gave us to develop some estimates, but the question is: how much detail can the Bill go into? The truth is that expenses may be incurred during a petition process that the Government could not have anticipated, so it will be down to the petition officer to submit expenses and costs, and we will set out a fees and charges order to cover that. That is why the Bill does not go into as much detail as the hon. Member for Caerphilly would have liked.
	Rightly and understandably, there has been much discussion about whether the petition signing sheet will be user-tested. I hope I can reassure the Committee that its wording has been developed with the input of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is balanced and fits with the commission’s guidance for referendum questions. The wording that we and the commission have devised gives petitioners the information they need, including the important addition that if the Member in question loses their seat as a result of a petition, there is nothing to prevent them from standing. It is worth making it clear that during the petition process, the Member in question is no longer a Member of Parliament: when recall is triggered their seat is vacated, but there is nothing to prevent them from standing in the subsequent by-election.

Wayne David: The Minister says that there has been consultation with the Electoral Commission, but the commission itself says that it would be far better if the opinion of a panel consisting of a cross-section of the population were tested before the final wording was agreed. There must be a sliver of doubt in the Minister’s mind, because the Bill itself says that
	“The Minister may by regulations amend subsection (4).”
	If the Minister wants to be able to amend it, why not take it out, and let us have a proper consultation?

Sam Gyimah: There is not a sliver of doubt in my mind. I am smiling because I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman on user-testing, which we would look to undertake as we go through the process of setting out the regulations, if need be amending the petition signing sheet. So the Government have not set their face against user-testing, which I believe is the main concern, and understandably so.

Thomas Docherty: The Minister refers repeatedly to the secondary legislation process and the Standing Orders. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has said, the relevant wording is in the Bill—in primary legislation. Is the Minister confirming that the Minister in question will seek to amend the Bill itself at a later date, rather than pursuing the secondary legislation process?

Sam Gyimah: We will be using the powers of secondary legislation to amend the Bill once we have been through user-testing. The practical point is that we cannot user-test while at the same time debating the Bill. User-testing could throw up a completely different issue. We have developed the Bill with input from the Electoral Commission and we will user-test it as we go through this process.

David Heath: I applaud the Minister for being open-minded about this issue and I realise he is describing a process, but it really does not make sense to include specific wording in primary legislation and then say, “We will probably amend it, once we’ve done the user-testing, in secondary legislation”, because no one will know that. When they go to the primary legislation, they will find different words from those that will appear on the petition form. If I may gently say so, it really would make more sense to get rid of this clause, put “the Minister may, by order, prescribe the words” and let him get on with it by secondary legislation. That is not a Henry VIII clause—Henry VIII would have had just one signature, anyway. It is just sensible legislation.

Sam Gyimah: Let me finish describing the process I was outlining. We will get Royal Assent for the Bill, undertake user-testing, and then introduce secondary legislation. We in this House amend our legislation all the time—for next year’s general election we are looking at a number of things that were based on user-testing with the Electoral Commission. We may not have to amend it at all, subject to user-testing.

Thomas Docherty: I say in the spirit of bipartisanship that I think the Minister may have misspoken. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is entirely correct. It is not normal practice to get Royal Assent and then seek to amend primary legislation. If I may try to be helpful to the Minister, he might wish to offer to the Committee that he will take this issue away and seek to establish some consensus on Report, or even in the other place.

Sam Gyimah: rose—

David Heath: We all want the same thing.

Sam Gyimah: As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out from a sedentary position, we all want the same thing: we all want to ensure that this process works extremely well, and I will take on board the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has made.
	A number of references were made to the wording of the petition signing sheet. The wording is set out in primary legislation but can be amended by secondary legislation if some problems transpire, as I said earlier, but we would look to gain consensus for the process.
	The decision on where polling stations should be located is normally made by members of the council for the local authority in question. All local authorities must review their UK parliamentary polling districts and polling places at least once every five years. To assist with this, the Electoral Commission has produced guidance on conducting polling place reviews. A number of Members said that the decision on where to locate the polling station could in some ways prejudice the result. The truth is that unless there is a polling station in every part of the constituency, one will be open to that charge.

Kevan Jones: It is important to point out that these are not polling stations but collection points for petitions. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) said, we no longer have last
	week’s nonsensical proposal by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). However, it would be open to someone from a party in opposition to a Member of Parliament subject to recall to do exactly what the Minister just said. They could have a polling station on every street corner if they wanted to. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for example, let us say that the local party wanted, for unfriendly political reasons, to put a polling station in a certain building.

Sam Gyimah: The main point is that the person who determines where the polling stations are located is the petition officer, who is otherwise the electoral registration officer, and they have the skills and experience to determine how to run the process. It would be easy for the hon. Gentleman to make that charge if there were to be a petition station in every part of the constituency, but that is not what we are debating, because the Bill says that there will be a maximum of four.

Kevan Jones: In my experience, it is possible to influence the outcome of these things. I remember that many years ago a council ward in the Newcastle city council area seemed to have a polling station on every street corner. When I became the Labour party’s local ward secretary, I asked why, and found—lo and behold—that the person in charge was a local councillor. I am not saying that this should necessarily be addressed in the Bill, but there should be some stronger guidance as opposed to just leaving it up to the local council.

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the only way in which people can participate in this process is by turning up physically and signing the petition sheet. Let me be clear, by the way, that it will not be possible to see everyone’s signature on the petition sheet; in fact, it looks more like a ballot paper. People can participate by post or by proxy. It is not strictly accurate to argue that the place where the ERO decides to locate the petition station can, in itself, affect the result.

David Heath: I think that most electoral registration officers will fulfil their duties as petition officers with exactly the same degree of integrity as they would in elections, and they are also subject to supervision from the Electoral Commission. When the regular review of polling places takes place, we could ask the ERO, in consultation with all the people he has to consult, to designate where the petition places would be situated so that there was clarity on that at a time when it was not specific to a particular MP in particular circumstances, and everyone recognised that it was a neutral process. That would be very sensible, and it might be done by guidance or by regulation.

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and logical point that is consistent with what we are trying to achieve. I will definitely take it on board.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being incredibly patient given the number of questions. I have not yet had an answer to my question about costs, on which I am sure that he has had inspiration.
	As part of the £55,000 costs for a recall, what estimate was made of the number of people who would seek a postal vote?

Sam Gyimah: I will come to that point later.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked whether anyone can turn up at any location and sign, and asked about double signing. I assure him that these details will be set out in regulations. Constituents eligible to vote will be sent a petition notice card allocating them a location, and they will be able to sign only at that location. They will be marked off the register at that location when they are given a signing sheet.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Sam Gyimah: May I try to get through my speech?

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Sam Gyimah: I will just carry on.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) asked about the requirement for translation into the Welsh language of the wording—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Sir Roger. I think that the purpose of a Committee is for the Minister to answer questions about what he is saying to it. When people ask the Minister questions, a lot of the time he clearly does not have a clue what he is talking about. He should accept interventions on these technical points—they are not general political points.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that the Member who has the Floor determines whether he gives way on any particular point.

Sam Gyimah: Thank you, Sir Roger. I think I have been quite generous in allowing interventions in the spirit of allowing members of the Committee to contribute as much as possible to the Bill. As the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said on Second Reading, we have been generous not only in accepting interventions but in accepting excellent ideas such as that just proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath).
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about translation into the Welsh language. Clause 21(5) applies section 26 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to regulations made under the Bill, and this would give a power for the appropriate Minister to provide a form of words in Welsh. I hope that that deals with his point.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) asked whether there would be a marked register. Yes, there would. We are considering whether it would be a public marked register, because in this case, unlike in an election, where we can have a register but be unable to tell which way people voted, people will declare by way of a marked register their intention on whether they want to get rid of an MP.

Kevan Jones: What would be the purpose of a marked register if it were not public? If the public did not know who had signed it, what earthly use would it be?

Sam Gyimah: That is precisely why we are considering the issue. Obviously, the point of the register is to mark people off for verification purposes as they turn up at the petition station. Further to that, we are considering whether to make the register public. We have to recognise that this process is very different from an election and think about what happens when the register becomes a marked register.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked about appropriate opening hours. I assure him that we will look into that when it comes to drafting the regulations. It may be possible for a petition officer to choose a location that is open in the evening, on weekdays, and so on. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we should have a consultation to determine some of these questions every five years rather than doing so in the heat of a petition process.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He kindly said to me at the beginning of the debate that he was happy to welcome as many interventions as I wanted to make, so I am taking him up on that offer.
	A couple of very useful suggestions have been made by the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Will the Minister pick up on those as a compromise that would take us through this group of clauses? The hon. Member for Foyle rightly observed that eight weeks is too long a period, and that four is too small a number of designated places for a recall petition. Will the Minister consider shortening that period, because it will be agonising for the sitting MP? For eight weeks, a sitting MP who has been successfully elected in an election will not know whether they are sitting or suspended, or what they are going to be, until perhaps 10% of the electorate have cast some manner of vote. Will the Minister consider the compromise offered of more designated places and a shorter period in which a person could sign the petition?

Sam Gyimah: I thank the hon. Lady for that point. The Government are trying to strike the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said that four places would be the minimum rather than the maximum, but not setting a maximum at all would risk having great inconsistency across our constituencies. Allowing for eight weeks provides a balance and people will be able to vote either by post or by proxy during that period.

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he persists with this line of argument, I invite him to visit Northern Ireland, particularly Belfast, where more peace walls have been built since the Belfast agreement was signed on Good Friday than existed during the troubles. We have constituencies that are divided. Four places for people to vote on a recall petition would be so unrepresentative.

Sam Gyimah: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s particular point about Northern Ireland, but I do not think that the Government’s point about a maximum of four places and allowing eight weeks is particularly onerous.
	If people are particularly exercised about signing the petition, eight weeks is a sufficient amount of time for them to be able to do so.

Mark Durkan: Only 10% of voters would have to sign the recall petition during those eight weeks, which is a longer period not only than the by-election campaign that would succeed the petition, but than the period designated for a general election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Is eight weeks reasonable?

Sam Gyimah: Eight weeks is reasonable, given that there will be a campaign on both sides. Once there is a notice of petition, the candidate would want to set their case before the electorate and the people who believe in the MP would also want to campaign. Eight weeks allows for getting people to the polling station to vote and for campaigns to take place. It allows for every step of the process to take place in an orderly fashion.
	The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, asked how the Government arrived at the estimate of £55,000 in our impact assessment. According to the breakdown, a total of £23,000 breaks into staff preparation and issuing, staff opening and check-in hours, training, printing and stationery, postage and equipment. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the necessary assurance.

Thomas Docherty: What I specifically asked about was how many electors the Government, in reaching that total, estimated would vote by post. The Minister has not given us that figure yet, but I am sure he has it to hand.

Sam Gyimah: I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point of detail.
	In rounding up this debate, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset not to press his amendment. When establishing an electoral process, the Government believe that we have to ensure that we make it as open as possible. There are many cases where a smaller number of signing places will serve constituents just as well as a large number, but we must not set out in statute expectations of service that could be hard to meet. The flexibility that the Government have built into the Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny provides enough physical locations for signing when people wish to do so in person.
	Before I sit down, I want to clarify one point. I said that the MP would not be an MP during the petition process. In actual fact, it is the seat that is vacated if the threshold is reached, but the MP would have to stand in the by-election and win in order to retake their seat. In that sense, the seat would be lost, albeit only temporarily.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point of order, I will take it, but he knows that once the winding-up speech has been completed no other member will be called. If he wishes to refer to his amendment, I will come to it at the appropriate time, which is not now.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.

Roger Gale: We now come to amendment 38, which has not been moved, so it is a question of whether any hon. Member who is a signatory to the amendment wishes to move it. You cannot withdraw it, because it has not been moved.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thought I had moved it in the speech I made earlier.

Roger Gale: Let me explain, for the benefit of the whole Committee, that only the lead measure, which in this case was clause 6 stand part, is moved. Other amendments and clauses are moved in the order that they are reached, so technically amendment 38 has not been moved, although the hon. Gentleman has spoken to it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I move the amendment with a few words, Sir Roger?

Roger Gale: No.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Where and From When the Recall Petition May Be Signed

Amendment proposed: 38, page5,line27,leave out “maximum” and insert “minimum”—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
	This amendment changes the number of designated places for the signing of a recall petition from a maximum of four to a minimum of four.
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	Question negatived.
	Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Determination of whether recall petition successful

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 15 stand part.

Tom Brake: Clauses 14 and 15 set out the actions that must be taken to determine whether a petition is successful, and the consequences of a successful petition.
	Clause 14 sets out the mechanism for determining whether the recall petition was successful and the subsequent actions that the petition officer must undertake. At the end of the eight-week signing period, the petition officer must determine whether the petition was successful, notify the Speaker of the outcome and issue a public notice of the outcome in the form and manner to be set out in regulations.
	The petition is deemed successful if the number of persons who validly sign it is at least 10% of the number of eligible registered electors—that is, the number of persons who are registered in the register of parliamentary electors for the constituency on the last day of the signing period, including those who made an application to register on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice and who were added to the register before the cut-off day. That means that at least 10% of those eligible to sign must have done so for a petition to be successful. Electors who are under the age of 18 at the end of the signing period will be excluded from that figure, as will additions to or removals from the register that take effect after the cut-off day, unless the addition or removal was made as a result of a court order or to correct an error.
	Clause 14 provides that a recall petition is validly signed if it is signed by a person during the signing period who is entitled to sign under clause 10; if the person has not previously signed the petition and meets any conditions set out in regulations that are applicable; and if their entry in the register of parliamentary electors has not been removed after they signed the petition, as a result of a court order or discovery of incorrect information. Finally, clause 14 specifies that the Speaker must lay before the House of Commons any notice received from the petition officer on the outcome of the petition.
	Clause 15 provides that if a recall petition is successful, the MP’s seat becomes vacant when the petition officer notifies the Speaker of the petition’s outcome. However, this provision does not apply if, before the petition officer notifies the Speaker of the outcome, the MP’s seat is already vacated as result of the MP’s disqualification or death, or for any other reason. Additionally, regulations may be made under clause 18 that set out the circumstances in which the validity of a petition may be questioned. Clause 15(3) ensures that the process by which an MP’s seat becomes vacant is subject to those regulations.
	Clauses 14 and 15 will ensure that proper actions are taken to determine the result of a petition and give notice of the outcome. They will ensure that a vacancy arises when at least 10% of an MP’s constituents have signed a petition for their removal and that, by extension, a by-election will happen. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Tom Brake: I am sorry, but I have concluded my remarks. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to make a speech.

Roger Gale: Under the circumstances, the only thing that I can do is to call the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: The Bill is so important that I think I would like to speak.
	Voting in this country is a serious matter. We have the great distinction of being a democracy that is admired around the world. Men died in their thousands in the trenches during a world war that began 100 years ago. When we have a general election and voters come out in
	whatever numbers—we wish that they came out in greater numbers—and go to the trouble of casting their votes between set hours, which are generally 7 am and 10 pm, they have taken the matter seriously and have voted for an MP. Some MPs belong to political parties and some, like myself, stand as independents. Independent MPs do not have a party to pay for recall expenses or support them through a recall petition. It therefore behoves us to think about the legislation that we are passing.
	Given that Bill will apply throughout the United Kingdom, we must think about the differences in Northern Ireland. I think that valuable lessons could be learned from the experiences of voter registration and identification in Northern Ireland. We have been very successful in defeating vote stealing as a major criminal offence. Those valuable lessons could be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.
	The Deputy Leader of the House rattled through clauses 14 and 15, which have been beautifully drafted by wonderful and skilled parliamentary assistants. What worries me is that we accepted in the previous group of proposals that there will be only four designated places where a recall petition can physically be signed, no matter whether it is in the islands and highlands of Scotland, the far reaches of Fermanagh and Tyrone, with their lovely spires, or the constituency of Strangford—if the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was here, he would be able to speak for his constituency—which is a large and disparate geographical area. We have agreed that there will be four designated places and that there will be eight weeks. We have skimmed through the issue of the signatures on the petitions. In Northern Ireland, we have strict regulations for voting in elections to ensure that there is no voter fraud.
	I was disappointed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) dismiss the opportunity to think about improving the Bill. This is an important Bill under which an MP could face recall after only 10% of the electorate have voted for it. That is a very low threshold. If we are not careful in looking at the clauses this evening, instead of the Speaker being given a notice of a petition, a number of MPs will be going to their solicitors and calling into question the validity of recall petitions on the grounds of forged signatures and illegal proxy votes, because the Bill before us tonight is riddled with loopholes. It is no good for the Minister to say, “Oh, well. We will test the Bill when it gets on the statute book.” That will be a bit late in the day to test the legislation. We cannot leave it that late. We have an opportunity to amend it and improve it.
	I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to address the following question. Given the importance of a recall to a Member who has just been elected in a general election, what will happen when an independent Member such as me is subject to a recall petition? I have no party to support me or to pay for me to fight off a recall petition. However, I would not hesitate in going to a lawyer, many of whom I taught in a previous incarnation. I am very proud to have taught in the law faculty of Queen’s university. Will the Minister clarify what will happen when an MP who has just been told that they have lost their seat through a recall petition looks to see who has signed it and finds that the
	signatures are not valid? What will happen in the intervening period? I would like him to address that when he closes the debate.

David Heath: I have just one quick question for the Minister. Has he or any other Minister had any discussions with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority about whether it is producing a scheme to deal with the staff of a Member of Parliament who loses their seat by virtue of recall? I hope that it will not produce a scheme that allows for an ex gratia payment or severance pay for the Member of Parliament. However, will the Member’s staff be made redundant at the point at which the notice is served to the Speaker, or has no one yet thought about that? If no one has thought about it, I invite the Minister to think about it and urge him to get in touch with IPSA to see whether it can provide an appropriate schedule.

Tom Brake: I think that it would be appropriate for me to respond to the points that have been made.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) suggested that the Government had dismissed the opportunity to improve the legislation. I do not think that that is the case. For instance, we are looking actively at the proposals that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). The Government are willing to listen to what Members say and to see whether we can respond.
	The hon. Member for North Down asked how one will be able to check the validity of the signatures. In responding to the last group of proposals, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) confirmed that there will be a marked register. We are looking in greater detail at whether the marked register should be in the public domain. He rightly explained that the marked register that is made available after a general election or local council election is different in that all that can be ascertained by the people or political parties who look at it is that a person voted in the election; they have no idea how the person voted. A petition that calls for the recall of a Member of Parliament, whether they represent a political party or are independent, is a statement of opposition to that party or politician. The register is therefore different in terms of what it reveals about the person who has taken part in the petition process. That is why the Government are actively looking at whether it would be appropriate to make the marked register public. I agree that we need to have a process that allows people to look at who has voted and to check whether someone did or did not participate in an election or a petition. We are actively considering that point.
	The hon. Lady spoke about the four designated places and said that eight weeks was a long period for people to be able to sign a petition. That is not a matter for discussion under clauses 14 and 15, but the Government have set out their view. We think that having four places strikes the right balance in making the places accessible to people. Those who have spoken about increasing that number have not referred to the fact that postal and proxy voting is available. People do not have to go to one, four or more locations as they can vote by post, and eight weeks is a sensible period in which to sign a petition.

Anne Main: The Minister is outlining how long people have to respond to a petition. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about potentially challenging some of the signatures, is there a length of time for which that will be open to a Member, or—mañana—could it be any time? How will Members know the rules governing the process?

Tom Brake: I suspect that Members will look at what happens in other elections, and at the parallels we have drawn between the petition process we are establishing and other elections. If I need to say more on that issue, I will contact my hon. Friend.

Lady Hermon: The Minister replied to the point rightly indentified by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), but no clause states any period in which an MP can challenge a recall petition. We are discussing clauses 14 and 15. Which clause covers circumstances in which an MP—quite rightly—seeks an injunction to prevent the Speaker from reading out the fact that their seat has become vacant?

Tom Brake: Again, the hon. Lady can draw parallels with other election processes and the avenues available for appeal regarding those who have voted in an election, if there is the possibility that fraud has taken place. She can look at how that process works in other elections.

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps I can be helpful to the Minister. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raises an important point, and as I understand it—the Minister may wish to get inspiration on this—the Speaker is not challengeable under judicial review and parliamentary privilege—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Gyimah) is nodding away. Is it correct to say that the Member cannot challenge the Speaker’s decision, and that therefore the only opportunity for such a challenge is before the petition officer has informed the Speaker that the threshold has been met?

Tom Brake: I am happy to take helpful interventions from the hon. Gentleman—and indeed any inspiration, which may be forthcoming—and to address his particular point and seek clarification on whether he is right to say that once the process has reached the Speaker, no appeal can be invoked.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made a helpful query about whether the Government have engaged with IPSA about the impact on an MP’s staff should their employer be successfully recalled and subsequently lose their seat in a by-election should they stand again. Fortunately, we still have time in which those discussions can take place—if they have not done so already—and I am sure we want to ensure that IPSA is aware of that possibility. We clearly want clarity for staff on the impact that any recall would have on their future employment, particularly during the petition process, and immediately afterwards during the by-election should the Member seek to stand. If the Member decides not to stand in that by-election, what terms and conditions would apply to their staff? On that point, in the absence of more detailed inspiration—[Interruption.]

Thomas Docherty: Does the Minister agree that those discussions with IPSA must take place before the Bill becomes law, so that we do not have—as with most things to do with IPSA—a law of unintended consequences?

Tom Brake: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is in everyone’s interest for those discussions to take place as soon as possible. As we are debating this issue and the profile of recall is increasing, staff who may—for whatever reason—feel that their MP might be vulnerable to recall might start to ask themselves questions about their future employment. In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Gentleman, the Speaker does not determine that the threshold has been met. The giving of the petition officer’s notice has that effect, and it is therefore challengeable. Details will be set out in regulations, but once the by-election has been held it is clearly too late.

David Heath: This raises an important point. In an election, the election is held, the result declared, and the Member of Parliament may take their seat, but that can be set aside by an election court in the case of malfeasance during the electoral process. If malfeasance during the petition process comes to light at a later date, it is not clear that there is a process for rectifying the situation. I think that is at least part of the point raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and it may be something that Ministers will have to consider.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that further contribution. There may come a point where a Member of Parliament has been recalled, stood in a by-election and lost, but subsequently something is proved to have been flawed in the recall process. That is a possibility, and it is unfortunately difficult to see how the Government could come forward with something that would address that. There may be other circumstances that I have not thought of that it might be appropriate for us to consider, and I will certainly look at whether the Government need to take into account other aspects of this issue.
	I am grateful to hon. Members for their views on these clauses, and some important points have been raised, particularly on IPSA. I believe that the clauses are necessary to ensure that a proper and consistent process is followed at the conclusion of a recall petition, and to establish that an MP will lose their seat if a petition is successful. I therefore believe that the clauses should remain part of the Bill in their current form, and I again commend them to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16
	 — 
	Expenses, donations and reporting

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
	That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
	That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
	Clause 17 stand part.

Tom Brake: Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 3, which sets out the regulation of expenditure; to schedule 4, which establishes the controls on donations to accredited campaigners; and to schedule 5, which sets the rules for making recall petition returns. Clause 17 deals with the control of loans to accredited campaigners.
	The nature of the recall process means that a wide variety of groups will be campaigning for or against the recall of an MP. Concern was rightly expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on Second Reading about the impact of “big money” on the recall process. It is therefore vital that recall petitions are proportionately regulated to allow local groups to engage, while limiting the capacity for wealthy or overseas campaigners to have disproportionate influence over the outcome.
	Campaign regulation under the Bill mirrors, with appropriate modifications, the Representation of the People Act 1983. As a successful recall petition will result in a by-election, it is sensible that the difference between the regimes regulating the petition period and a subsequent by-election is not too large. The Bill also draws on the regime for permitted participants in referendums in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is appropriate because the recall petition process will share many of the characteristics of a referendum.
	Schedule 3 introduces two spending limits for expenses incurred during the recall petition period, with regulation appropriate to the sums. The first is a lower limit of £500. Campaigners who incur expenses of less than that amount are subject to that limit and no other regulation. They are known in the Bill as non-accredited campaigners. That lower limit will permit local groups to carry out a certain amount of campaigning, such as printing and distributing leaflets, without their being subject to the fullest reporting requirements.
	Those who intend to spend more than £500 must become an accredited campaigner. An accredited campaigner cannot spend more than £10,000 during the recall petition period. That figure is similar to the amount a candidate can spend in the short campaign before a general election. Eligibility as an accredited campaigner is based on eligibility for becoming a permitted participant in a referendum, and includes individuals, political parties and companies. The intention is not to restrict campaigning to those who are eligible to sign the petition. An MP who is subject to a recall petition can become an accredited campaigner.

Lady Hermon: As the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm that donations will be in the public domain, and that the Bill takes precedence over current procedures in Northern Ireland, where donations to political parties are protected by anonymity? I might have no idea who or what is trying to unseat me in a recall petition.

Tom Brake: I am afraid I am unable to give the hon. Lady the reassurance she needs. My understanding is that the Bill does not ensure that donations will be public, but if I am wrong, I am sure I can correct myself shortly.
	Accredited campaigners will be subject to additional rules under the Bill relating to spending and donations. The rules follow an established approach set by existing electoral legislation that will be familiar to right hon. and hon. Members and party administrators.

Anne Main: Currently, recognised parties have an imprinted logo on all leaflets to ensure that any leaflet that goes through a door can be traced. Will accredited campaigners have to band together under a logo? If not, how does one trace leaflets and associate them with expenditure on a campaign?

Tom Brake: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is conflating having an imprint and identifying campaign groups that are working together in concert to fight against an MP. Under the rules on expenditure and the £10,000 limit, if two organisations are working together with a common campaign plan to try to get people to sign a recall petition, they will have to account for their expenditure collectively within that £10,000 limit. They cannot accumulate their expenditure. However, as we know from other elections, it is sometimes difficult to identify whether two campaign organisations are working together to oppose a particular candidate or party, because they might structure their campaigns in a way that is not entirely transparent.

Thomas Docherty: May I take the Minister back to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? As I am sure the Minister recalls, political parties currently have to declare to the Electoral Commission any donation they receive above a certain value. Members of Parliament are in addition required to declare to the registrar of interests any donation we receive to our campaigns above a value of, I believe, £500.01. Will the Minister therefore clarify whether a donation to the campaign of the Member of Parliament who faces recall would have to be declared to the appropriate authorities? Would a donation above £1,000 to a political party that is an accredited campaigner have to be declared to the relevant Electoral Commission?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I need to respond to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on imprints. The answer to her is that that will be set out in secondary legislation.
	I also want to clarify the point I made in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on donations in Northern Ireland. It is a complex and important issue, and she has campaigned for greater transparency. To maintain public trust in the process of recall, it is essential that there is transparency in the funding of accredited campaigners. All donations of more than £500 will have to be reported by accredited campaigners, including the donor’s name. That includes donations from Northern Ireland residents to accredited campaigners. However, there is an exception when the accredited campaigner is a Northern Ireland registered party that is not a minor party, as these are regulated separately by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Under the Act, reportable donations to a Northern Ireland political party are currently not made public. In the specific case of recall, there will be anonymity for the donor. However, that is subject to changes that can be introduced under the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 to increase transparency on donations. I hope that that clarifies the issue for the hon. Lady and has picked up on the point about accredited campaigners having to report donations of more than £500 and the donor’s name.
	Before I took the interventions, I was about to speak to schedule 4, which will deliver confidence that donations are appropriately controlled. The rules will prevent undue influence by wealthy or foreign donors over the outcome of recall petitions while allowing legitimate donations to be made. The definition of a relevant donation is consistent with wider electoral law. It is based on what counts as a donation to permitted participants at a referendum under the 2000 Act. The definition of permissible donor is based on the definition relating to donations to political parties. That will prevent the overseas funding of recall petition campaigns without preventing UK electors, organisations or companies from donating to campaigners of their choice.
	Schedules 3 and 4 provide proportionate regulation of campaigners seeking to raise and spend money, and schedule 5 adds openness. To ensure transparency and compliance with the regulations, details of reportable expenditure and donations to an accredited campaigner must be submitted to the petition officer at the end of the recall process. Those submissions will be available for public scrutiny for a period of two years.
	Schedule 5 sets out what is required in a recall petition return and is based on returns for permitted participants in referendums under the 2000 Act, although with appropriate modifications. Responsibility for the administration and conduct of the recall petition falls to the petition officer. That includes receiving and publishing accreditation notices and spending returns from accredited campaigners. The aim has never been to create a highly regulated process, but to ensure, as in a constituency election campaign, that spending and donations are transparent. The Electoral Commission will have a number of advisory, reporting and administrative roles that are similar, although with appropriate modifications, to those it exercises in elections more generally.
	Clause 17 amends section 62 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The Act contains an order-making power to introduce controls on loans to candidates at elections, recognised third parties at national election campaigns and permitted participants in a referendum. No orders have yet been made under this section. The amendment made by the clause will extend the order-making power to accredited campaigners in relation to a recall petition. The Bill’s approach is consistent with wider electoral law and will deliver three objectives. First, it will not hinder individuals and groups who have an interest in participating in the petition process. Secondly, the system will prevent disproportionate levels of spending or donations being made in an attempt to influence unduly the outcome of the process. Thirdly, those who spend significant amounts on campaigning will be appropriately regulated and transparent about what they are spending and who is supporting them. I commend these clauses and schedules to the House.

Lady Hermon: It is very kind of you, Sir Roger Gale, to call me to speak when I have not indicated that I wish to do so. I moved on the Bench to indicate to the Minister that I was most displeased with the response to my earlier intervention. I feel that I need to—[Interruption.] I am absolutely delighted. It is awfully kind of you to call me, Sir Roger. I was not scolding you—I am really pleased.

Roger Gale: I thought the hon. Lady was rising.

Lady Hermon: I was indeed intending to rise. It is so nice of you to call me, Sir Roger.
	This is a very important provision. I was under the illusion that the Bill would apply equally throughout the United Kingdom. I was encouraged by the Minister when he read out, very quickly and precisely, the carefully and very skilfully drafted words in relation to expenses, schedules and donations. The Minister built up my hopes by explaining that in Northern Ireland there would have to be a declaration when £500 was donated. However, exemptions will continue for donations to political parties under the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014.
	We have the most unusual and completely unjustifiable situation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland can be safe enough to host the G8 summit in Fermanagh, a border county that at one stage was the heartland of the Provisional IRA and where many people were killed. Northern Ireland was safe enough to host the world police and fire games. Thousands of police and fire officers came to compete and absolutely loved the experience. Despite that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland introduced the 2014 Act, which extended the period of anonymity for donations to political parties. We are moving in the right direction and there is a time scale in which we hope to be able to remove that anonymity, but at present we do not know who donates to political parties. That is not good for the democratic process in Northern Ireland. It undermines public confidence in the political parties—as if we needed public confidence in Northern Ireland to be undermined any further than it already is.
	Since the Belfast agreement, many people have tried to build bridges between the two communities. In some instances, they have been very successful. When it comes to elections, however, the people of Northern Ireland have no idea who is funding the large parties. I do not want to personalise the argument. I sit as an independent MP and that is what I stood as. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) would not mind me mentioning her. She represents the Alliance party in this House. Alliance party members on Belfast city council voted to stop flying the Union flag over Belfast city hall on 365 days a year and instead to fly it on only 17 designated days. The hon. Lady, who very courageously represents Belfast East and does not sit on Belfast city council, has been subjected to death threats, and her constituency offices have been targeted regularly. She and her staff have had to put up with the most vile abuse and intimidation, but she courageously defends her seat and represents her constituents. She will not be easily intimidated and I am just full of admiration for her.
	I would have expected the Minister to provide Members representing small parties like the Alliance party or those sitting as an independent, as I do, some glimmer of hope that a recall petition could not be funded anonymously by large donations to political parties that could get together to unseat a very able MP. I would hate to think that that would be the outcome in Belfast East. The hon. Lady is a very feisty lady and I am sure she will fight the general election, but that is what the recall petition could do.
	The Minister insisted that the Bill has to apply evenly across the United Kingdom in terms of the eight weeks for the recall petition and only four places where people can sign petitions in a constituency. That has to apply
	equally throughout the UK. Constituents and MPs in Northern Ireland are therefore entitled to know, as they are in Yorkshire, Devon, Cornwall or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, who is funding the recall petition that seeks to unseat them when they have been legitimately and properly elected in Northern Ireland, just as other MPs have been legitimately and properly elected elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Thomas Docherty: I will be as brief as possible. I did not think that this part of the Bill would be contentious—I assumed that that would come with clause 18 and the recall provisions—but I have been somewhat surprised by some of the points made by the Minister. I have taken the opportunity just now, in relation to the points raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), to read through both the Bill and the explanatory notes. I have a great deal of sympathy with her arguments. As far as I can see—the Minister will have the opportunity to be “inspired” and rebut my arguments—there is not a sentence in either the explanatory notes or the Bill that says the provisions will not apply equally to Northern Ireland. The exception is, of course, the donations that are allowed from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, but there is no specific reference to two different recall systems operating.
	I suspect the Minister was not lucky enough to spend a great deal of time in Scotland in recent months during our referendum campaign, and I fear nor were those from the Cabinet Office. Many of the Government’s assumptions on collusion simply do not stack up with the reality of what we saw in Scotland. Let me explain. There was a concerted and clear effort by the Scottish National party and its supporters to co-ordinate activity. A number of organisations were set up—including Academics for Yes, Farming for Yes, Mums for Change and Christians for Yes—to receive significant donations from the same individuals, including Brian Souter and Mr and Mrs Weir, for the clear purpose of allowing multiple spends during the campaign.
	There was a limit of £1.5 million that any one organisation could spend during the referendum, but the reality was that the yes campaign, through a very small number of donors, was able to stack up multiple spends. The reality is that it was impossible to prove on the ground that collusion was going on, even when brown envelopes were arriving through constituents’ doors with “Referendum information” on them containing four or five pieces of literature from Academics for Yes, Farming for Yes, Wings Over Scotland and others. Therefore, we are not convinced at this stage that the Minister has set out sufficient safeguards to avoid collusion by organisations.
	There is a valid point, which was made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Member for North Down. The hon. Member for North Down is not a member of any political party, so if I may take her as an example, without sufficiently robust procedures, it would be quite possible for three or four political parties to choose, in effect, to club together and each spend £10,000-plus amounts from multiple unaccredited campaigners, and dwarf what she would be able legitimately to spend, even if she could gather donors who would allow her—as I am sure they would—to spend significantly more than that.
	The problem is that throughout this debate we have been constantly referring to schedules or saying, “It will be coming forward in due course.” I want to place on record our belief that before this Bill gets to the Lords, the Government will have to do significant work listening to the interventions from both sides of the Committee to satisfy hon. Members.

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, in that those groups would have one aim: not to get themselves in, but to get the Member out. Therefore, it would be a much more powerful group than any the Member could field on their own behalf.

Thomas Docherty: I entirely agree. There is merit in further discussion about that because, as the hon. Lady says, unlike in a general election, where there would be three or four competing parties each pursuing a different goal—trying, I would hope, to get their own person elected—in this case three out of four political parties might be pursuing one goal and able to spend £30,000, while the fourth party, the party of the incumbent, would be pursuing the other goal.
	I urge the Government to have a careful think and to talk to Members across the House to see whether we can establish some rules. For example, I know that some hon. Members have suggested that rather than capping what each party could spend, we should cap the total spend on the two arguments—that is, for and against recall. I hope that Ministers will consider those arguments in the weeks ahead. We do not wish to detain the Committee; I know that Ministers are listening carefully—I am grateful to see some nods from the Treasury Bench. If the Minister assures me that he will undertake to meet the hon. Member for North Down to discuss her concerns and to meet the Opposition in the days ahead, I will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue.

Tom Brake: We have had a useful debate, identifying some areas where the Government could usefully do some more work on the Bill. As we have said on a number of occasions, the process that the Government want to follow with this Bill is one is that allows Members from all parts of the House to make suggestions.
	Let me respond to the points made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). One thing that she omitted—I am sure she remembered it, but she did not refer to it—is that for the recall process to start, there has to be a trigger. It is not as if organisations are lining up to try to unseat her or anyone else, such as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long); there is a trigger that starts the process. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Down that once the process has started, some organisations will have more money to bring to bear on the campaign than she, or I or other individual Members may have.
	However, the hon. Lady has raised a point, which was reflected in the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made about how to ensure a level playing field in expenditure. I am happy to look at the point he made about whether it would be practical to have a total cap on the for and against campaigns. However, I am sure that experienced campaigners will be able to find their way around that approach—[Interruption.] Not my party, of course; I was thinking more of the Labour party. So it would not be a guarantee that one side could not outspend the other.
	The anonymity of donations is an issue that the hon. Member for North Down and, indeed, other Northern Ireland Members raise on a regular basis. It would not be a appropriate for me to put forward a solution in this Bill to an issue that has been ongoing for some time, but I hope she will acknowledge that at least some partial progress has been made on transparency—albeit perhaps not the full Monty that she would like to see us delivering. She knows much better than I do how complicated politics are in Northern Ireland and how difficult it is to find solutions that are accepted in all camps there.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has approached this Bill in a consensual, engaging way. He highlighted the importance of having safeguards against collusion among different organisations. I accept that that is a significant issue, just as it was in relation to, for example, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, where one of the biggest issues concerned the collective ability of third party campaigners significantly to outspend others and the difficulties in identifying whether they were acting independently or as part of an organised campaign. Those concerns will also apply to this Bill; I acknowledge that. We need to be aware of the issue and ensure that as many safeguards as possible are put in place—which is why I have said that I would be happy to get back to him on his suggestion of capping both sides of the argument to ensure equality of arms in any recall petition campaign.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a point about donations to political parties and the Member of Parliament. For clarity’s sake, let me put it on the record that donations to political parties will be declared and made public under the current legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—rather than the Recall of MPs Bill. An MP who is an accredited campaigner will have to declare relevant donations in the same way as other accredited campaigners.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I would be willing to meet the Opposition to discuss their concerns about the Bill. We met earlier this morning, and I am happy to meet him whenever appropriate, whenever he feels there is a significant issue he would like to raise. Indeed, if the hon. Member for North Down would like to meet to discuss some of her concerns, Ministers would be happy to do that and to accommodate her.

Thomas Docherty: I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer than necessary, but I wonder whether the Minister can clarify something about his very helpful answer about MPs’ declaration. As I understand it, a Member of Parliament who is fighting a recall petition has not yet vacated their seat, so am I right in thinking that they would have to declare any donation made to the fighting of the recall while they were still an MP, regardless of the outcome of the petition?

Tom Brake: As the hon. Gentleman often does, he has come back with a very detailed question, to which I will respond in writing, as I have to conclude the debate on this particular grouping of amendments. I hope what I said has been helpful in setting out the Government’s position. We have identified some further areas where more work needs to be done. I commend these provisions to the Committee.
	Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedules 3 to 5 agreed to.
	Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Power to make further provision about conduct of a recall petition etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Crausby: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause 19 stand part.
	Government Amendments 50 to 52.
	Clauses 20 to 25 stand part.
	That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Tom Brake: I will now speak to amendments 50, 51 and 52, which seek to amend clause 19, and which have been tabled in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. I will explain the effect of the other clauses and schedules in the group.
	The Law Society of Scotland suggested that, as drafted, there is a circularity in clause 19 that requires clarification. We think that it is unlikely that the clause would be misinterpreted, but would prefer to clarify the drafting to avoid doubt. As drafted, the Speaker may appoint someone to take his place if he is unable to perform his duties. The circularity comes because if he is unable to perform his duties, he is also unable to appoint someone. The Government have therefore proposed these amendments to remove any ambiguity from clause 19. The effect of the clause is the same.
	Clauses 18 to 25 are largely technical clauses. They allow the Government to make further regulations about the recall process and to amend or otherwise reflect existing legislation. Clause 18 provides for the Government to make regulations about the conduct of a recall petition. It is envisaged that regulations on the conduct of the campaign will be based on those that exist for elections, with amendments to address the particular circumstances of the recall petition.
	Clause 19 mirrors existing legislation, which makes provision for the Speaker’s functions, such as issuing notice to the petition officer, to be exercised by another person in the absence of the Speaker. This can be a person appointed by the Speaker or it can be the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. As I have mentioned, amendments 50, 51 and 52 remove any ambiguity in this clause.

Lady Hermon: I could not possibly allow the Minister to move on so quickly from clause 18, which is a very important one because it ties in with an issue I raised earlier. The Minister referred only to clause 18(1)(a), and I would like him to deal with paragraph (b), which provides that the Minister
	“may make provision about the questioning of the outcome of a recall petition and the consequences of irregularities”.
	As I raised earlier, if the Member who is being subjected to the recall wishes to stop the petition officer notifying the Speaker, that MP should have the opportunity to take legal advice and to seek an injunction to prevent it
	from happening. Will the Minister simply confirm that the relevant Minister will not take the opportunity to attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the court if a Member subject to a recall petition has perfectly understandable concerns about the irregularities experienced in the recall petition?

Tom Brake: I knew I would not get away without an intervention from the hon. Lady in this final group of amendments. I have more to say, and if I do not address her points, we can return to them later.
	Clause 20 introduces schedule 6, which provides for minor and consequential amendments to be made to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. For example, the Representation of the People Act 1983 will be amended to allow that the form of writ for a by-election can state that it is to be held as a result of a successful recall petition. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will also be amended to give additional functions to the Electoral Commission in relation to recall petitions. These amendments will give the Electoral Commission functions that are similar, albeit with appropriate modifications, to those it already exercises in relation to elections more generally. Further changes to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 made by schedule 6 ensure that the recall Bill can be successfully introduced into the landscape of existing electoral legislation.
	Clause 21 allows the Government to make any further necessary regulations under this Act, and sets out the procedure for doing so. The clause provides for the regulations to be made by statutory instrument.
	Clauses 22 to 25 are formal clauses which, respectively, define the interpretation to be given to key words and phrases in the Bill, set out its territorial extent, provide details of when the provisions will come into force, and give the short title of the Bill. I therefore support amendments 50, 51 and 52 in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I commend to the Committee clauses 18 to 25 and schedule 6.

David Heath: I have three brief points. The first echoes the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about clause 18(1)(b). I do not think it satisfactory in this instance to have something decided by further regulation. This is a sufficiently important part of the procedure to be built directly into the Bill, so I ask the Minister to look at that.
	My second point relates to clause 18(3)(c). If we are to maintain the position that we have a limited number of designated places, it is not satisfactory for people to be allocated to a specific designated place. If there are only four places in my constituency where people can go to sign this petition, people should not be told which one is the most convenient because it might be the wrong choice given where people work or whatever. I would prefer clause 18(3)(c) to disappear.
	Thirdly, on clause 19, the Minister has proposed three explanatory amendments, but I have to ask why on earth the Speaker should be able to appoint a person to perform his functions. We have a system here whereby we elect four special Members: the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the First Deputy Chairman of
	Ways and Means and the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. If the Speaker is not able to carry out his functions, those responsibilities will fall naturally to the Chairman of Ways and Means and so on down the chain of command, as it were, in the Speaker’s Office. It is not appropriate for the Speaker to magic somebody else out of thin air to perform his duties when that person is not supported by the election of this House. This is a throwback to the old system whereby a Speaker was elected and everybody else was appointed by the Speaker. That is not appropriate. I ask the Minister to rewrite clause 19 to make it quite clear that in the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers will take on this responsibility.

Thomas Docherty: It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I have just three or four brief points and one substantive one. Let me begin with the substantive one.
	As the Minister knows, clause 18 is the one about which Opposition Members have the most trepidation—and not just because of experiences in Scotland, but because of the recall petitions in the United States and elsewhere, and indeed because of the events that occurred in Oldham, East and Saddleworth in 2010 and the subsequent conviction in the elections court. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has pressed diligently on this matter —today, in Committee last week and, if my memory serves me correctly, on Second Reading, too. Labour Members have some genuine concerns about the material that might be issued during the recall petition campaign. It does not appear to us to be absolutely clear at this stage that both accredited and unaccredited campaigners are required to abide by PPERA. The Minister’s stock reply throughout the evening has been “We will cover this by means of regulation.” We seek a specific guarantee that the Government intend to ensure that all campaigners are covered by the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.

Anne Main: Will the Member of Parliament still be working as a Member of Parliament during the period concerned? If people write to him saying “I want to know this from you in your capacity as my Member of Parliament”, does he have to declare the costs incurred for his staff or anyone who replies to any such letters? That really does need to be sorted out if we are to have a level playing field.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Lady has asked an excellent question. It is not for me to speak for the Government—yet—but I understand that during the recall petition phase, a Member of Parliament will still be a Member of Parliament. I trust that the Minister will nod his assent to that. If the petition is successful, the seat will be vacated, and the person concerned will no longer be a Member of Parliament during the period leading up to the by-election.
	We need to know more details in regard to a number of issues. As I said earlier, it would be helpful to both Houses if the Government could at least produce draft regulations before the Bill goes to the Lords, if not before for the Report stage in the House of Commons. We think that there is plenty of room of potential abuse by campaigners, who, if not covered by PPERA, could make a series of unfounded allegations. We are concerned
	about the £500 limit, because a large number of individual constituents who had not supported an MP’s position on another issue could choose to spend £499. Although the petition itself had been called for on specific grounds of wrongdoing, it would then be possible for someone to say “My MP did not support my position on issue x or y.” There needs to be clear guidance not just on spending limits, but on what is written on the leaflets. We want Ministers to confirm that everyone will be covered by PPERA.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a valid point about the Speaker. I appreciate that we are not engaging in a broader debate on clause 19, but I think that there is scope for us to consider not just the question of who will appoint a Deputy Speaker, but the question of what will happen if the Speaker himself, or herself, is subject to recall in the future. The Government may say that if the Speaker were in prison, he or she would clearly be absent, but that might be for only one day. An expenses offence might be involved, if our proposed amendment is accepted on Report. We hope that the Government will consult Members on both sides of the House, and will consider clarifying the rules—either on Report or in the House of Lords—to ensure that if the Member of Parliament concerned is the Speaker, there will be a specific procedure enabling the Speaker to be recused from that process.
	We have had a long and fulfilling debate, but I think that Ministers have plenty of homework to do. We would give them a C minus today, but they “could do better”. So far they have shown considerable attitude, if not aptitude, and we hope that when we return to the Bill on Report, their homework will be better.

Tom Brake: Let me respond briefly to the points that have been made.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was rightly concerned about the possibility that a Member of Parliament could challenge the recall process. Regulations will set out the details of the way in which questioning about irregularities will take place, and the impact that irregularities may have on the outcome of the petition, but the courts will, in certain circumstances, be able to rule that the outcome of the petition is invalid. The hon. Lady may not feel that that is a substantial enough answer to her query, but I shall be happy to meet her if she wants to make further points or to be given further clarification.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) mentioned the limited number of designated places for signing, and the fact that they would be designated: in other words, people would have to go to specific signing points. As he probably realises, the purpose is to ensure that people cannot double-sign. If people could go to any of the four places, they might choose to move from one to another
	—

David Heath: It would be very simple to check.

Tom Brake: It would, but that is why the Government want to designate a place of signature, as happens when people cast their votes in an election.

Thomas Docherty: Let me help out the hon. Gentleman, who does not usually need any help. According to my recollection, he was not disputing the issue of multiple
	signing. It was a question of who decided which petition station the constituent was assigned to, which is a slightly different issue.

Tom Brake: I may have misunderstood the point that my hon. Friend. was making. I thought that he was questioning why someone would have to go to a designated signing point, as opposed to being able to go to all of them.

David Heath: I do not want to delay things, but if there are four designated places, and there is a long period in which to check whether someone has signed in more than one place, it will not be like a general election, in which people turn up on the day and the result is announced that night. There is no reason why the electoral registration officer cannot detect that someone has visited more than one polling station. However, it may be greatly to the convenience of a person, particularly in a very large constituency, to go to one designated place rather than another to sign, and that may not be the one that happens to be the closest to that person’s house.

Tom Brake: I entirely understand that point, although I suspect that had my hon. Friend, in his previous guise, been at the Dispatch Box, he would have made the point that I have made. While in theory it is perfectly possible to check whether someone has signed at different locations, in practice, given that 20,000 people might potentially be signing the petition, it might be quite a hard task for the petition officer to undertake.
	As for my hon. Friend’s point about the Speaker, the answer is that the provision follows existing legislation, which is exactly the point that he was making. However, I shall be happy to reflect on whether we need to do anything more.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wanted to see draft regulations before the Bill reached the House of Lords. I am afraid that I cannot give him that assurance, but I can undertake to make any information that we can provide in advance available before the Bill goes to the Lords. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Speaker, although he made a slightly different point: he wanted to know what would happen if the Speaker himself was recalled.
	I think that the Government have understood that point and have covered all bases, but we have offered the hon. Gentleman a meeting, and I should be happy to explain in a further meeting why I think that the House would be able to respond to the scenario that he has in mind. I am grateful to all Members for giving their views. As I have said, these clauses are largely technical, but they are essential for the smooth introduction of a recall power that fits into our existing electoral system and uses safeguards to ensure that recall will be a fair and transparent process. In addition, the Government have tabled amendments 50, 51 and 52 to remove any ambiguity in clause 19. I therefore believe that clauses 18 and 20 to 25, and schedule 6, should remain part of the Bill in their current form.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19
	 — 
	Performance of the Speaker’s functions by others

Amendments made: 50,page13,line3,after “person” insert “who is, if a relevant circumstance arises,”
	This amendment and amendments 51 and 52 remove a potential ambiguity in clause 19(1).
	51,page13,line4,leave out from “functions”)” to end of line 7 and insert—
	‘( ) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant circumstance” arises if—
	(a) the Speaker is unable to perform the Speaker’s functions because of absence, illness or for any other reason, or
	(b) there is a vacancy in the office of the Speaker.”
	52,page13,line11,leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	‘(3) If a relevant circumstance arises and no appointment under subsection (1) is in force, the Speaker’s functions are to be performed by the Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.”—(Tom Brake.)
	Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 6 agreed to.
	Clauses 21 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported.
	Bill to be considered tomorrow.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Desmond Swayne: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or Government Department.

Philip Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Desmond Swayne: Of course.

Philip Davies: I just wonder whether the Minister felt any embarrassment about bringing forward this money resolution the week after a report showed how much money his Department gives out that is either wasted or goes in some form of corruption.

Desmond Swayne: I think my hon. Friend may not have read the report, as I have done.

Philip Davies: Oh, I have!

Desmond Swayne: One of the things we always discover with reports is that there is always an expectation, or a request, that the Department for International Development will do more, which is the case at present.
	We have several very successful programmes for the reduction of corruption. What we have had from the International Commission for Aid Impact is essentially a request that we develop further programmes to deal with corruption at the local level and reduce its impact on the lives of ordinary people. As a DFID Minister, I am happy to consider everything we can do to achieve that, and I regard the report as a useful pointer.
	I reject entirely the allegations that any of the current programmes have led to an increase in the level of petty corruption. I think the report has got the wrong end of the stick. It is not clear to me where that information has come from and it is certainly not clear in the report.

Edward Leigh: The problem is that when we have a Departmental budget that, almost uniquely, is awash with money and is growing all the time, and where there is a limited number of countries under very difficult circumstances to which it is being directed, that must increase the possibility of corruption. That is what this report is saying, and that is what we are saying. That is why we are concerned about the amount of taxpayers’ money being wasted.

Desmond Swayne: The issue before us this evening is the money to be spent in achieving a Committee stage for the Bill, rather than the total amount of money spent as a result of the principle of the Bill, which is what we dealt with in the second week of September. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that it is absolutely vital that we develop programmes, schemes and methods of
	ensuring that every single penny is spent as it should be, and that it should not be wasted in corruption. I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that the principle of the Bill was agreed overwhelmingly by the House—166 votes to seven. It is the will of the House that the Bill proceeds.

Anne Main: I am sorry if I sound unhelpful but I have gone through every report in the independent audit and there are things that will concern the public, such as the review of the trade development work in southern Africa where we have discovered a payment to the Government of Zimbabwe in contravention of UK Government policy. We do need to keep tight control over money that is spent, or the taxpayer will feel that they are being fleeced.

Desmond Swayne: It is vital that these matters are investigated and answers are given and that proper schemes are in place and enforced to ensure that the money is spent correctly. The purpose of this money resolution, however, is to give effect to the will of the House, clearly expressed in September, that this Committee proceed.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Why, therefore, are the Government not bringing forward a money resolution for the European referendum Bill—or, for that matter, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), because he will be on his feet in a moment if I do not include him?

Desmond Swayne: I would welcome being at this Dispatch Box to move a money resolution for the European referendum Bill.

Peter Bone: Go on then.

Edward Leigh: Go on then.

Desmond Swayne: Unfortunately it is not within my gift to do so. That is a matter for the business managers and the usual channels to sort out. I wish it were my decision; I wish I could gratify those wishes, but unfortunately I am unable to do so.

Stephen Doughty: As the Minister has said, this money resolution gives effect to the strong will of the House to see this Bill go forward. Does he agree with me that the very purpose of our development assistance is to help countries to grow—to develop and to establish stronger Government systems—and to tackle the very corruption that inevitably occurs in some of the poorest countries in the world, and that actually we need to build a virtuous circle in respect of these issues, and not just pick things out one by one, as some Government Members are trying to do?

Desmond Swayne: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. That is the purpose of this motion today; its purpose is to give effect to the will of the House so that the Bill can move into Committee.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Desmond Swayne: I am spoilt for choice. I give way to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

Andrew George: I entirely endorse this motion, but as he said a moment ago, its purpose is to give effect to the clearly expressed will of the House. The House also clearly expressed its will on 5 September when we debated the Affordable Homes Bill. I do not understand why the Government are not bringing forward a money resolution for Bill No. 1.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Minister, before you are tempted down that route, I would just like to remind the House that we are only debating the money resolution with respect to this Bill, and no other agreed or not agreed or yet to come before the House money resolution, so no Member should tempt the Minister to speak on any money resolution except the one before us today. That is important because we have only 45 minutes.

Desmond Swayne: I am guided by your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that I am no more able to gratify the hon. Member for St Ives than I am my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The fact is that this money resolution gives effect to the will of the House so this Bill can move into Committee.

Peter Bone: I think the Minister made a slight error with his numbers earlier. I think he was referring to the voting on the closure motion, when the debate was curtailed. The vote on the question on Second Reading was 164 to six. Will he enlighten us as to how the decision is made to bring money resolutions to the Floor of the House?

Desmond Swayne: I stand corrected; my hon. Friend has clearly examined the record more scrupulously than I did. On his second question: that is a mystery to me. It is not for me to determine which Bills have money resolutions and which do not. That is a question that he might properly put to the Leader of the House on Thursday at business questions, because it is effectively his decision. The irony is that this Bill would not have required a money resolution in order to go into Committee had it not been for clause 5, which sets up a new body. The fact is that it is my intention to persuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) to amend the Bill in Committee by taking out that offending clause.

Michael Moore: I am happy to put on record the fact that the Minister and I have been having constructive discussions, and I hope that we will be in a position to bring amendments to the Committee together to deal with the matter that he has just raised.

Desmond Swayne: I am glad that there is unity across the House, on that matter at least.

Richard Fuller: Will the Minister explain the process behind this particular money resolution? In an era in which the country knows that the Government have no money to throw around, what process did he go
	through to determine that there should be expenditure on progressing this Bill, which, if it is passed, would have serious implications for public expenditure?

Desmond Swayne: The process is simple. We discussed it a great deal on Second Reading, but my hon. Friend is now effectively attempting to reopen that debate. The Bill was approved according to the clearly expressed will of the House, but it concerns a pledge that was in every party’s manifesto.

Peter Bone: The Minister has got to the crux of the matter. This should be a Government Bill and it should be debated in Government time. It should not have to be pushed through by this back-door means.

Desmond Swayne: I hardly think that a private Member’s Bill could be referred to as being “pushed through” in that way. If it had been a Government Bill, my hon. Friend might well have complained about the operation of the Whips and about it being railroaded through; he has often complained about that in the past. Surely he does not think that that is happening with a private Member’s Bill; that is absolute nonsense.

Philip Davies: The Minister keeps repeating that approval of the Bill was expressed with the clear will of the House, but he also announced that 164 Members voted in favour of it. The last time I looked there were 650 MPs, so on what basis does he think that 164 Members represent the clear will of all 650?

Desmond Swayne: The reason I keep repeating that the clear will of the House was expressed on that occasion is that it manifestly was. As my hon. Friend knows, the will of the House can be expressed through a majority of one. The fact that so many Members voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill’s Second Reading shows that that clearly was the will of the House. He is an aficionado of the House’s procedures on Fridays, and he will know that to get more than a quorum on a Friday is a substantial achievement. The fact that the House was filled with so many Members was a tremendous tribute to their strength of feeling and support for my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk’s Bill.

Tom Clarke: I can understand why the Minister is getting excited, or even angry, but I urge him not to do that. The hon. Members who are putting him under pressure are not representative of this Parliament, and it is this Parliament that has the right to decide whether there will be a money resolution, just as we have the right to decide whether the Bill makes any more progress.

Desmond Swayne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concern. I assure him that I can take the pressure. As for the excitement, I am excited about the progress of this important Bill, and with that in mind, I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

Gavin Shuker: It has been a pleasure to watch the debate for the past few minutes. Watching Members on the Government Benches has been a bit like watching one’s mum and dad arguing.
	I want to say a few words about the Bill, and about why we will be supporting the money resolution this evening. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department for International Development for outlining the financial implications of the Bill. The Labour party stands for a just society not only within our own borders but across a just world. More Labour MPs than any others voted for the Bill on Second Reading. The rights and benefits that we have established for people in the UK derive not from those people’s nationality but from their humanity. We must do all that we can to establish those same rights and benefits for the rest of the world’s people.

Anne Main: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the words of the previous Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who said:
	“it would be fruitless for us to invest in aid to relieve the plight of the poor in the short term if we did not seek to bring about lasting change.”
	He went on to emphasise the importance of tackling corruption. Given that so many aid programmes are showing as either amber/red or red, it is important that we ensure that taxpayers’ money goes to the needy and not to the greedy.

Gavin Shuker: It is hugely important to ensure that aid gets to the right people. Indeed, the reports to which the hon. Lady referred in an earlier intervention make it clear that those who lose out the most are the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world where there is the most corruption. It is up to the Government to defend those people. I want to be generous and say that this challenge is faced by all developed nations when rolling out their aid programmes. I also agree with the hon. Lady about spending the money effectively, which is why I believe we can do much more to make the Department for International Development a real force for good in the world in relation to global institutional reform. It should not simply be the charitable arm of the UK Government. That should be our focus as we take the Bill through Parliament.
	We live in a global community, yet every 10 seconds a child dies from hunger and malnutrition. A population more than three times the size of Birmingham dies each year from water-related diseases, and 1 million children die on their first and only day of life.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman just mentioned the charitable arm of the Government. Will he explain how that is different from the charitable feelings that we have as individuals?

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman has set me up nicely to explain the dualism involved. There is a belief among those who have latterly signed up to the cause that we have a responsibility to spend a significant proportion of our GDP on aid, but that that action represents the end of the process. They believe, for example, that we are getting value for money by buying a certain number of mosquito nets or toilets, or by digging a certain number of wells. In fact, we have to tackle the institutions that reinforce inequality in the first place. We should not therefore view DFID as the charitable arm of the UK Government; quite the opposite—it needs to be a force for transformation.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making an extremely strong point. The British people are donating extraordinarily generously at the moment through the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal to tackle the spread of Ebola in west Africa, yet Conservative Members are chuntering in their seats and attempting to frustrate the Bill at this crucial time. The House has expressed its will to support countries such as Sierra Leone in developing strong health systems that would prevent outbreaks of diseases like Ebola in the first place.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I commend the Government for the work they are doing in Africa to tackle Ebola. We should be proud that this country is stepping up to the plate while other nations could do much more. However, it is institutional issues such as a lack of universal health care coverage—which we might have an opportunity to do something about in the post-2015 discussions—that will decide the fate of people in future outbreaks. We should not lose sight of that fact.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we should not be judged solely on how much we are spending, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, this Bill is precisely about being judged on how much we spend. It does not do any of the other things that he thinks worth while. Does he therefore agree that we should ensure that the money we are already spending is spent properly before we consider increasing it, rather than doing what the Bill seeks to do, which is to increase it first then come back later to see whether it has been spent properly?

Gavin Shuker: It is clear that we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I do not view it as inconsistent to raise our budget over the coming years in line with a set figure that we have been signed up to for a long time, at the same time as tackling corruption. That policy will form a safeguard for future generations, which is why it has cross-party support.

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman makes his case with his customary passion and commitment to the cause. The Minister explained that we needed to agree to the motion in order to put the Bill into Committee so that we can then take out clause 5, which makes the motion necessary. If that is the case, what will the Opposition do in relation to clause 5?

Gavin Shuker: Those discussions are going on between the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) and the Government at the moment. It will ultimately be a matter for the Committee to decide, but we are certainly open to any measures that would ensure that the Bill reached the statute book in good time. This should be agreed on a cross-party basis, and I believe that we would all be in a much stronger position if we went into the next election with this legislation in place.

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Africa. One of the commissioners of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, Diana Good, who oversaw its work there, said:
	“We had a number of grave concerns, from the £67 million unused money and misreporting to excessive expenses, against the
	background of a programme which was regarded as a flagship but failed properly to take into account the impact on the poor. DFID just relied on the assumption that the poor would benefit”.
	We owe it to the British taxpayer to ensure that the poor are helped, not just to assume that they are being helped.

Gavin Shuker: We absolutely do. The hon. Lady makes an extremely good case for additional scrutiny. The Opposition hope that we do scrutinise the Department for International Development effectively. I simply point out that as we discuss this money resolution for a Bill about the total size of the envelope, we must not lose our sense of momentum in holding the Government to account. However, I say to the hon. Lady that those are slightly separate issues, and it would be good for the House if we made progress on the resolution.

Peter Bone: The shadow Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I have a high regard for him. He has talked a lot about the issues in the Bill, but we are discussing the money resolution. Does he agree that the tradition in this House is that if a private Member gets a Second Reading, which is difficult to do, a money resolution ought to be forthcoming so that the Bill can be discussed in Committee?

Gavin Shuker: I note that the hon. Gentleman has had considerably more time in the House than my good self—I believe he first sat on the green Benches in 2005, making quite an impact ever since—so I shall leave it to him to follow up that point with Ministers. It is true that we are committed to the Bill, and it is clear that we support the money resolution tonight.
	The resolution focuses on money, not just integrity. It is therefore appropriate for us to reflect on the benefits that stem from our being a world leader in international development. Globally, we can see the true impact of poverty and the lack of opportunities, and how inequality and poor governance fuel extremism and hate. If we want the situation to change permanently, the only long-term solution is to invest in development.

Philip Davies: The money resolution states that it will
	“authorise any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department.”
	How much money is the hon. Gentleman prepared to throw at it? The resolution says “any”, so how much money is he prepared to hand over under it?

Gavin Shuker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know, from his preparations for what I hope will be an entertaining speech, that the wording is fairly standard for a money resolution.
	Our total spend is currently about 0.7% of GDP, and that will obviously be enforced by the Bill. Forgive me for saying that the general public may be misled—though certainly not by Members of this House—to believe that the amount we are spending is much greater. When asked, they said that on average 19% of our GDP is sent overseas, and when asked how much they thought should be sent overseas, they aimed for about 1.5%, so I am perfectly content with 0.7% to protect the poorest in the world’s community.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Shuker: I will, but I do so for the last time.

Edward Leigh: To get back to the money resolution and the very important constitutional point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), does the Labour party think it is right and proper for the Government to expedite a money resolution for one private Member’s Bill—this Bill—but not for the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which many of us view as equally important?

Gavin Shuker: The vagaries of coalition politics are new to us all, including Opposition Members.

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that we are debating a money resolution for the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, is it in order to expand the debate to deal with matters European?

Dawn Primarolo: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have already told the House, that this is not a general debate on the policy of money resolutions; it is specific to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill. Members have referred to others in passing, but they are not the subject of this debate. We are using up time in a time-limited debate. I am therefore sure that Members will stay in order, and I will certainly keep them in order by not allowing them to expand the debate to any other Bill.

Gavin Shuker: The Bill will be truly memorable, given the recent interventions.
	The challenges we face are often global, and they require global leadership. It is clear that if we want to achieve a post-aid world, the 0.7% target must be met. That will require consistent leadership by developed nations; and passing the Bill, for which tonight’s money resolution is obviously needed, can only enhance the opportunity to encourage other developed nations that have made commitments to step up to the mark.
	Money is only a small part of the story, because global leadership is also needed. That is why we will guard against DFID becoming the charitable arm of the UK Government when it can be an instrument for global development and change. It is true that the 0.7% target is enough to provide the most effective anti-malarial vaccine to every child in need, send 50 million children to school and provide sanitation for nearly everyone who needs it, but development is about much more than a single vaccine, sending one child to school or punching a hole in the ground. It is about providing a platform for empowerment and self-sustainability that will end the need for aid in our lifetime. I think that I speak for Members from across the House when I say that that should be our aim. We may disagree on the route to achieving it, but Opposition Members believe that passing the money resolution is a serious step forward, and we are backing it and the Bill.

Michael Moore: It will not surprise the House to hear that I support the money resolution. I am delighted that the
	Government have introduced it, and I am grateful to them for it. I welcome the speeches made from both Front Benches—

Philip Davies: And Back Benches.

Michael Moore: And especially from the Back Benches. They have helped to shine a light on some of the issues involved in the Bill. I am not too hopeful about reaching agreement on them during the remaining stages of the Bill, but I hope we might do so.
	On 12 September, we had a very striking result—whether it involved the whole House or otherwise—with 164 right hon. and hon. Members in favour of the Bill and only six opposed to it. That demonstrated that there was broad support across the parties for the idea of putting the United Nations target for official development assistance at 0.7% of gross national income into law.
	During that debate, many interventions and the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) opposed the principleof the Bill and raised concerns—such concerns have been raised again this evening—about how official development assistance is spent, whether it comes from UK taxpayers or from others across the world. I expect and hope, assuming that we have a money resolution and can go into Committee tomorrow, that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) will make many of those points and ensure that the Bill is thoroughly scrutinised in Committee.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the progress he has managed to make with his Bill. Does he agree that, given the majority he achieved, it would have been absolutely outrageous if a money resolution for his Bill had not been brought forward?

Michael Moore: I can see where the hon. Gentleman is going with his intervention, but may I just say that decisions about other Bills, to which he may or may not be alluding, are way beyond my pay grade? Selfishly, as far as my Bill is concerned, I quite agree with him.
	I welcome the fact that the efficiency and effectiveness of our official development assistance spending was a central feature of the debate a few weeks ago, as was entirely right. As currently constructed, the Bill includes a proposal, in clause 5 and the schedule, to introduce an independent international development office. The money resolution is required because of that provision, and it is fair to say that the specifics of the proposal have led to some discussion between the Minister, the Department and others who are interested in this matter.

Philip Davies: Given that the office is the right hon. Gentleman’s initiative and that the money resolution is specifically about it, how much does he have in mind for its cost?

Michael Moore: As little as possible, and that is the key to this whole process and to the discussions between the Government and me. Those discussions will be developed further in Committee if that is the will of the House. Specifically, we are talking about not only the principle of spending this degree of taxpayers’ money on official development assistance but appropriate scrutiny. I have listened carefully to the Government’s concerns, and I hope that we can find something that respects the principle, but does not burden the taxpayer with the undue costs of the machinery of government.

Philip Davies: Let me try again. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to put a figure on the cost, will he at least give us a cap, or is he asking us to write a blank cheque for his Bill?

Michael Moore: I am not asking for a blank cheque. I certainly accept that this House needs to take a view, in due course, on how much should be spent. [Interruption.] That will be a matter on which the House can reflect on Report and beyond. The important principle of scrutiny is one on which Government Ministers, shadow Ministers and others agree. I hope that it will not be difficult to come to an agreement in Committee that will respect the principle of scrutiny.
	We have a huge responsibility to the developing world to ensure that we help them out of poverty and into a much more hopeful future. We also have a responsibility to taxpayers in this country to ensure that the effectiveness and efficiency of that development assistance is appropriate and that this House is scrutinising it. I hope that we will be able to deliver that in Committee and when we report to the House in due course.

Tom Clarke: I did not expect to speak in this debate. To be honest, I did not expect the debate to go on for this long. During my time in the House, I have managed, as a result of coming high in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, to have the privilege—I am trying to keep in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—of introducing what are now two Acts of Parliament: the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.
	Getting a private Member’s Bill through the House is no easy achievement, and I was able to do it thanks to wonderful support. There is also the challenge of getting enough Members here on a Friday—something that ought to change—so when we address the specific issue before the House tonight, let it be remembered that many, many Members turned up on a Friday to give their overwhelming support to this Bill.
	Having referred to the two Acts with which I was associated, let me ask this: was it unusual for a money resolution of this kind to be introduced? No, it was not. When the first Act on disability went through the House, the Prime Minister was Mrs Thatcher. Mrs Thatcher was no spendthrift, but she was very obliging. Her Government introduced a similar money resolution.

Edward Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman is a very valued and experienced Member of this House and a real parliamentarian, so will he confirm my understanding that it is absolutely unprecedented for a Government deliberately to block a money resolution for a private Member’s Bill? Therefore, really we are talking about double standards, and that is not fair to Back Benchers.

Tom Clarke: I seek to support the money resolution before the House. That is where I stand. As the Minister has said, it is not a great request; it is almost an administrative matter. We do not even know at this stage—it is subject to the discussions in Committee—whether the clause the resolution covers will be agreed between the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh
	and Selkirk (Michael Moore) and the Government. But are we so mean that we will not even allow discussions to take place? The raison d’être for supporting my International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 was that we wanted to see more scrutiny. We did not want taxpayers’ money simply being thrown away. We wanted to address the very serious problems of world poverty, which this Bill addresses.

Stephen Doughty: My right hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Does he not agree that both the previous Government and the current one have seen tackling corruption and ensuring that effective aid is spent well as absolute priorities? The Department for International Development is regarded as one of the most successful Departments delivering development assistance globally. The very fact that some Government Members can cite concerns about some of the programmes is a testament to the fact that we are open and transparent and open to auditing, and that should be celebrated.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What this Bill seeks to do is build on the Act that I introduced. In reality, Members who introduce private Members’ Bills can only go as far as the Government of the day are prepared to go. I know that the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk will have been involved in all sorts of discussions with Ministers, and I know that that will continue. The Committee, which meets tomorrow, has a say in the matter as well. To give the Committee scope to deal with the principles that the House endorsed on Second Reading, the Minister has rightly judged that there is a requirement for this measure. Some people are extremely mean-minded; perhaps it is because they are opposed to the principle of 0.7%. I say to them with respect that the House has already decided on that matter, and it had the right to decide because each of the three major parties had that commitment in their manifestos.

Edward Leigh: What we are saying is that the Government have to be consistent. If they are pushing this money resolution on the basis of a Back Bencher’s Bill passed by Back Benchers and the Government, then they cannot block another money resolution on another Bill. That is all we are saying. It is totally inconsistent and an attack on the rights of Back Benchers.

Tom Clarke: To be perfectly frank, I will not be drawn into the arguments about another Bill. I came to the House tonight to support the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill money resolution. If there is a debate on other matters, then let that take place. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk has made his case. I am appalled that we are having this discussion. Given that the principle has been decided, the major political parties have made their commitments and there was such a high level of support on a Friday for this Bill, this administrative necessity should be put before the House and approved. I might get even more angry if I say any more, so I will not. The case is made. I invite the House to do the decent thing and pass the money resolution.

Anne Main: I will be brief because I know that there are other colleagues who wish to speak. We would be doing a disservice to the House and to members of the public if we did not point out that there are some serious concerns about the way that aid is used. We are not expecting people not to want to help the poor; we want to help the poor. I went through all the reports today, and I am sorry to say that, under the transparency of assessment of the programmes, so many of the programmes are failing to deliver aid because of problems with corruption and problems in those countries. Today, we owe it to people to scrutinise what is being spent on behalf of the British public.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Anne Main: I am sorry but I will not give way, because the next speaker will be an Opposition Member and so many Government Members wish to speak.
	On the work just in southern Africa, ICAI has said:
	“The shortcomings that we saw in the programme and its serious deficiencies in governance; financial management; procurement; value for money; transparency of spending; delivery and impact, as well as its failure to use DFID’s body of knowledge in trade and poverty, have led to a marking of Red for the programme.”
	The public expect us to be helping the poor and needy; they do not expect this. If Opposition Members have not been through the aid programmes, I would ask them to do so, because there are serious concerns about people lining their pockets and corruption. It is very difficult to get this sorted. Unfortunately, some of the reforms are not being put in place in some of the other countries. I suggest that before we start throwing more money at the problem, we help DFID by scrutinising these aid projects, and ensuring that the money we currently spend is well spent and getting to where it is supposed to go. I am pleased that DFID has dropped the innovative side of trying to find things to throw money at, because, unfortunately, “innovative” was not always in the best interests of the poor.

Philip Davies: Is it not worse than that, because the money resolution we are discussing is not about giving any more money to anybody in need or in any overseas development—it is about creating a whole new organisation of bureaucrats? That is what we are being asked to pass; it does not give any help to anybody in need.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The report published on 31 October says:
	DFID has not…developed an approach equal to the challenge, nor has it focussed its efforts sufficiently on the poor. While some programmes show limited achievements, there is little evidence of impact on corruption levels or in meeting the particular needs of the poor.”
	Surely that is what all of us are interested in, rather than just throwing money at the matter. I will bring my remarks to a close, but I caution against rushing this through before we tackle the fact that we are not delivering money to the poor.

Stephen Doughty: I rise to support the money resolution and the case made by the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and my right hon.
	Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I am disappointed listening to Conservative Back Benchers, because it seems that they are attempting to undermine the clearly expressed will in this House in a vote on a Friday and to use this debate to pursue other agendas. That is disappointing because DFID helps some of the poorest people in the world, who are suffering from diseases such as Ebola and so on
	—[Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is waving her report at me. I have read many reports about DFID’s effectiveness over the years, and the fact that those reports are available, that they are read by Ministers and by the Opposition and that questions are asked is testament to DFID’s openness and transparency in its programme. It is very misleading to quote selectively from those reports and not refer to the vast majority of DFID’s programmes, which are extremely effective in delivering poverty eradication and tackling some of the big challenges in our world.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to be missing the point of the money resolution: the Government are already spending the amount of money that he wants spent on overseas aid. That is not at issue here; we are being asked to sign a blank cheque to create a new bureaucracy and organisation which does not give any money to poor people around the world.

Stephen Doughty: It is more bluff and bluster from the hon. Gentleman: the type of rhetoric about blank cheques and throwing money at problems. If that is the view, would these Conservative Members say we should not be supporting the efforts against Ebola in west Africa, or we should not be helping to immunise children across the world, to educate people or to strengthen the Governments who need to be in place and to be strong to tackle the very corruption these Members are talking about?

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, but it is more like one for a Second Reading debate. The issue we are dealing with today is a money resolution. If the will of this House was expressed by 283 votes to nil, for example, would it not be right for the Government to introduce the money resolution measure? Is that not the approach that has been taken in this House in years gone by?

Stephen Doughty: You have given a clear direction already, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Members should not be drawn down other routes about other money resolutions. We are talking about the money resolution for the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which was passed by a clear will of this House. I am extremely disappointed that some Conservative Members are attempting to frustrate that, insert other agendas and rhetoric, and create a misleading impression of a Department that is regarded—and has been, whichever party has been running it—as one of the leading Departments in the world for tackling poverty.
	Corruption has been spoken about a lot, but both the previous Government and this one have spent significant time on strengthening anti-corruption activities. By ensuring development, growth and strong Governments, we create a virtuous circle that tackles the very corruption and problems these Conservative Members seem so exercised about. It is a shame they do not often turn up for more debates on international development to talk about
	some of these issues and engage constructively on them, rather than trying to bring in other agendas. As I said, we can look at plenty of reports about DFID. It would be misleading to suggest there is no corruption in the world—of course there is. Of course there are challenges in programmes and programmes that can be dealt with more effectively, but we ought to be proud of the fact we have the systems in place to establish that, instead of suggesting that the whole development programme is a huge mess and none of it is making any difference—that is patently not the case. I want to stand firmly in support of this money resolution and stand against the nonsense, bluff and bluster we have been hearing from some Conservative Members.

Peter Bone: I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding tonight. We seem to be hearing arguments for and against 0.7%—I happen to think that it is a bad idea—but that is not what we are discussing tonight; we are discussing a specific money resolution. Nobody outside will understand the importance of what is happening here, which relates to the conventions of Parliament and the way that Parliament works.
	The Bill should clearly have a money resolution, as should all private Members’ Bills that pass through this House—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) makes a good point, so I will correct that statement. In my view, there should be a debate on a money resolution for private Members’ Bills that receive a Second Reading. That is what we have tonight, and that is right. That does not mean that we have to vote for the money, but we have to be able to discuss it.
	What people are up in arms about tonight is the fact that for a previous Bill that received a Second Reading the Government did not move a money resolution. When the House votes by 283 to zero, one might think that is a pretty clear indication of what it thinks. What we are saying is that if we let this procedure carry on unchallenged—
	Three quarters of an hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 52(1)(b)).
	The House divided:

Ayes 295, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Broadcasting

That the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (11 NOVEMBER)

Ordered,
	That on Tuesday 11 November, notwithstanding the provisions of any existing Standing Order of this House–
	(1) the House shall sit at twelve noon;
	(2) the moment of interruption shall be half past seven o’clock;
	(3) the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at half past two o’clock and may continue for up to two and a half hours, excluding any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a committee of the whole House; and
	(4) the proviso to paragraph (1)(c) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall have effect as if instead of the reference to eight o’clock on Tuesday there stood a reference to half past eight o’clock.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

Committees

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6, 7 and 8 together.

Defence

Ordered,
	That Mr Julian Brazier and Mr Adam Holloway be discharged from the Defence Committee and Richard Benyon and Dr Julian Lewis be added.

Home Affairs

Ordered,
	That Tim Loughton be a member of the Home Affairs Committee.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Ordered,
	That Mr Andrew Robathan be a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Acocks Green Post Office (Birmingham)

John Hemming: The petition is from 573 residents of Acocks Green.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Acocks Green and customers of the Post Office in Acocks Green and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners oppose the proposed move of Acocks Green’s Post Office branch from 1100 Warwick Road to 1131 Warwick Road; further that the proposed new location has fewer serving hatches, a significantly narrower pavement and, unlike the current location, no canopy above the pavement for when customers have to queue; and further that the Petitioners are concerned about the viability of the new host company and its store, and therefore the long term security of the branch.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to listen to calls for the Post Office to reject the current proposals for the movement of the Acocks Green Post Office and seek alternative, more appropriate proposals.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001394]

BLACKPOOL AIRPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Mark Menzies: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to hold this Adjournment debate on the future of Blackpool airport, which is an extremely important issue facing my constituency and the Fylde coast. I know that all matters relating to the prosperity of Lancashire are of great interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening.
	Blackpool’s first venture into aviation came more than a century ago, back in 1909, after which the airfield went on to play an important role in the UK’s early aviation history. In fact, the sister of aviation pioneer Amy Johnson lived in Stanley park in Blackpool, which resulted in her often paying a flying visit. It was in the 1930s that commercial flights first began operating from Blackpool, but following the outbreak of the second world war the airfield played a crucial role in the support of the Royal Air Force.
	In the post-war years, the airport expanded rapidly, accommodating helicopter flights for gas rig workers and attracting scheduled flights from budget airlines, including Jet2.com, Monarch, Ryanair and smaller operators to Ireland and the Isle of Man.
	Hon. Members may know that the airport was owned by Blackpool council until 2004, when it was sold to City Hopper Airports. During this time the airport grew rapidly, with passenger numbers rising from 266,000 in 2004 to more than 560,000 in 2007. In 2008, Balfour Beatty bought a 95% stake of the airport from City Hopper and gave a firm commitment to develop the airport as a commercial going concern.
	The ensuing global position, however, saw most airports across the world experience a fall in passenger numbers. This saw Blackpool airport’s passenger numbers decline from just under 600,000 in 2007 to 262,000 last year. During that time the airport lost a number of flights from carriers such as Ryanair, with subsequent financial losses averaging approximately £2 million a year.
	Blackpool airport has the ability to operate with extended flight times. During that period of downturn, the main passenger contract with Jet2.com required the airport to remain open for long hours and provide a certain level of safety and operational staff cover. The consequence was that the operational costs of the airport were in excess of £5 million a year, with little chance of recovering that sum from the number of passengers being put through the airport by Jet2.com.
	Due to the significant losses being generated at the airport and the complications with the Jet2.com contract, Balfour Beatty announced in August 2014 that it had put the airport up for sale. Following a failure to find a buyer, it was announced that the airport would close on 15 October.
	Many of my constituents have expressed to me their concerns that the airport’s closure seemed to proceed at breakneck speed, with insufficient time allowed to find suitable buyers. Although many of us in this House would have liked to see this situation handled differently, I want to concentrate on the next steps to secure the future of Blackpool airport.
	Since the airport was put up for sale, I have been in regular contact with Mr Stewart Orrell, the managing director of infrastructure and investments for Balfour Beatty. In our meetings, I have impressed upon him the need for Balfour Beatty to work constructively to find a suitable buyer for the airport and to ensure that staff who have lost their jobs in the process receive the required support to find alternative work in the meantime.
	I have also had conversations with potential buyers and investors, my fellow Fylde coast MPs, the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is in his place, to discuss ways to make the airport a more viable business.
	I want to see what Government assistance might be on offer for those who wish to become involved in the airport’s future. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport outlining a range of potential measures to save the airport, including a possible reduction in air passenger duty for regional airports. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and I had a subsequent meeting with the Chancellor, at which we continued our discussions about the airport. The Chancellor listened intently to the points that we made and made clear his commitment to the Fylde coast. He said that he would work with me and my colleagues to find a solution that would increase the likelihood of aviation being retained on the Blackpool airport site.
	In recent months, the Chancellor has outlined his vision for a northern powerhouse. If done correctly, that has the potential to make the north of England the engine that drives Britain’s economy once again and an area that competes not just with London, but with the great economic conurbations of Europe. For that to be achieved, connectivity and transport infrastructure will be crucial. Good transport links are at the heart of the proposed northern powerhouse. Although there has been much talk of HS3 and proposed road infrastructure improvements, viable regional airports will also have a vital role to play. It is for that reason that I feel passionately that Blackpool airport should be retained as a commercial airport. With the correct support from Government, it will remain a transport infrastructure asset for Lancashire and the north-west.
	In order that that can happen, I have a number of requests to put to the Minister. While some of them will fall within his remit, others may fall within the portfolios of other Ministers. First, I appeal to those who are interested in operating a commercial airport to work with the liquidators, Zolfo Cooper, to ensure that the necessary equipment is retained on site so that the airport can continue to operate. That would include, for example, baggage-handling equipment, firefighting equipment and assets relating to air traffic control. When I spoke to Zolfo Cooper today, it informed me that it will be between six and eight weeks before a liquidation sale will proceed. It is important that interested parties contact the liquidators well before that deadline.
	I have made it clear that I do not want Blackpool airport to go the same way as Manston airport in Kent, where there was a fire sale of assets that put the immediate future of the airport in doubt. May I take this opportunity to urge Blackpool Airport Properties Ltd, which is owned by Balfour Beatty, to give assurances that it will
	maintain the runway, taxiways and terminal buildings until an operator is found? I ask the Minister to work with colleagues across Government, in particular at the Home Office, to ensure that equipment relating to airport security and customs and immigration procedures is available to future operators as soon as they come forward.
	A number of aviation businesses, such as flying schools, private jet service companies and helicopter operators, are currently working from the site and are facing uncertainty. It is crucial for the immediate future of the airport that those aviation businesses are retained. One of the largest operators is Bond Offshore Helicopters, which provides logistical support and personnel transport for the Morecombe bay and Irish sea gas rigs. I have been informed that it is temporarily operating out of BAE Systems’ Warton aerodrome, which is also in my constituency, while the future of Blackpool airport is decided. I understand that that is for a three-month period. I would not wish to see it go on any longer than that. I will speak to Bond Offshore Helicopters and BAE Systems to make my feelings clear: the company must remain at Blackpool airport.
	Blackpool airport may be eligible to benefit from the regional airport connectivity fund. I would very much like the Government to offer that, should a suitable airline come forward to provide such a service to London.
	Another source of Government assistance that I would like Ministers to explore is whether Blackpool airport could be considered for development capital through the regional growth fund. I believe that airport runways are strategic national assets that can only grow in importance, and they should be protected and supported by the Government to ensure their future viability.
	Blackpool airport is about 400 acres, and I have been told that a viable airport business on that site would require only 220 acres to maintain an airport service. That leaves well over 100 acres that may be suitable for commercial development, and if done in a carefully planned way that would not only raise capital for the airport’s development, but it may also attract new businesses that seek to use the runway and hangerage facilities. Down the road in Warton we have an enterprise zone that sits adjacent to a runway and has been zoned for aviation, energy, and advanced manufacturing. May I suggest to the Government that the Warton enterprise zone be expanded to include excess Blackpool airport land that may be deemed suitable for commercial development?
	Let me make it crystal clear, however, that if any developer is seeking to buy the airport, viewing it as a glorified brownfield site, simply to redevelop the land in its entirety for housing, retail or commercial use, I would find that completely unacceptable and fight it every step of the way. Such an act would be tantamount to economic vandalism, and would betray the hopes of local people and those across Lancashire who have supported the airport through thick and thin. To those developers thinking of going down that path, I say, “Don’t bother, and think again.”
	Although the airport may be closed for now, I remain determined to work for its future and to keep the airfield working as it is a proud part of the Lancashire and Fylde economy. I feel the airport has the ability to be a successful commercial venture, and with the correct support and as Member of Parliament for Fylde, I will work with interested parties, including Blackpool and
	Fylde councils, the Lancashire enterprise partnership and any potential investors, to secure its future. I believe in Blackpool airport, and I ask us all to work together to secure its future because Lancashire deserves it.

Gordon Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate and on giving an excellent speech that summed up most, if not all, of the very strong arguments for why Blackpool should retain its airport in an operational state. He was right to draw attention to Blackpool airport’s long history and tradition, which goes back to 1909, as well as to its contribution during the second world war as the place where thousands of aircraft pilots were trained.
	Today we must realise that the airport is of benefit not only to the people of Blackpool and the Fylde, or even to the tens of thousands of passengers who have used it every year for leisure and indeed business travel, and who now find themselves bereft of that opportunity because of what is—we hope—its temporary closure. The airport has the economic potential to be a crucial part of not only the sub-economy in the Fylde area but the economy of the whole of Lancashire, and I want to say a little more on that point.
	The hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, referred to operations out of the airport, and at the time of closure the airport site was supporting 11 tenants, with important small businesses employing up to 200 people. That made up about a £20 million contribution to the sub-regional gross value added, and included, as the hon. Gentleman said, commercial passengers, offshore helicopters, general and corporate aviation, fuel sales and estates and commercial land development. Whatever problems there may have been, and whatever the disputes between Balfour Beatty—the owner of the airport—and Jet2.com, we must not lose sight of the fact that the businesses that were operating there were doing so in an expanding economic climate. We need only to look at the map of Liverpool bay—as I have done when wearing my hat as shadow maritime Minister—and at the sheer amount of activity going on to see that, so we must take that point into account. There are strong arguments and feelings among my constituents in Blackpool, not simply because of passenger usage or the airport’s heritage, but because of its economic value.
	The issues raised in the debate are crucial. As the Minister knows, there are general problems with smaller airports in the regions. I will not stray from the topic of the debate, but I wrote to the Minister about the regional air connectivity fund. I was grateful for his positive response. As the hon. Member for Fylde has said, the Minister indicated that if new people come in with new flights, Blackpool could bid. However, it is not only a question of the air connectivity fund. It is also a question of what enabling mechanisms there might be for any new bidders to come in and take the airport on. The role of Lancashire enterprise partnership is potentially crucial in that, which is why I am glad that it is seriously considering what it can do with the support of the Fylde coast MPs to get that side of things moving.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the situation for anyone who wants to use the land for building or retail purposes. I entirely concur with his sentiments but,
	more importantly, so do the two councils—two thirds of the airport is in Fylde and the other is in my constituency, but Blackpool airport retains residual shares. I am glad that both councils have so far indicated that they would set their face against that form of development.
	I shall conclude on one important point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There are bidders and potential discussions, but as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is one thing to have bidders and another to close the deal. One thing that might be needed to close the deal is the reuse and remodelling of that extra acreage to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I would say both to him—I am sure he would agree—and to the Minister that that could be a crucial enabling facility for getting those potential bidders to sign up to the deal. I therefore ask the Minister to give an assurance that he will discuss the matter with the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities, or at least send the message to him.
	Hon. Members are pulling together with Blackpool council and Fylde council. I pay tribute to the work of Blackpool council officers and John Jones, the transport cabinet member. We all want a successful future for Blackpool airport for the sake of the regional economy, and for the people of Blackpool and the Fylde coast, but we need that little bit of extra help and leverage from Ministers and the Government.

Paul Maynard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing the debate. I endorse everything he and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) have said. I will not repeat the points they have made but make one or two small observations.
	The position has caused great concern on the Fylde coast for several weeks. It is right and proper that we debate it in the House of Commons. Many people in the aviation sector have told me that they are surprised that Blackpool lasted as long as it did. They say, “It was only the 29th busiest airport in the country. How could it possibly have had a long-term future?” Superficially, their point is attractive, but I should point out to the Blackpool naysayers that there is a profitable coastal airport over in Humberside—it is the 33rd busiest in the country and yet manages to turn a profit.
	If we are thinking about the future of Blackpool airport, it is worth looking at what Humberside has achieved on limited means, and at how it has built a profitable business. First and foremost, Humberside has had good, strong growth in charter flights. We recognise that Balfour Beatty and Jet2.com have not had the easiest relationship. I urge Jet2.com to engage more constructively with any potential buyer about their possible future use of Blackpool. Jet2.com needs to show commitment and support to the airport. We should also recognise that many Jet2.com employees have lost their jobs at Blackpool airport as a consequence of the decision. They deserve a voice in the debate.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) rightly pointed to the high degree of activity in the oil and gas sector in Liverpool bay at the moment. It is worth noting that Humberside has a major oil and gas operation that sustains what it is doing.
	The third crucial leg of what makes Humberside profitable is that it is has a connection to Amsterdam. I am quite sure that the Treasury does not want to hear this, but links to Amsterdam are an excellent way for passengers to try to avoid paying air passenger duty. If one looks at passenger usage figures for Humberside, one sees that the flights to Amsterdam contribute the most passengers. It would be an excellent addition to Blackpool’s portfolio of routes if KLM or a similar operator were to introduce an operation to Amsterdam or, for that matter, Frankfurt.
	Those three sets of circumstances could together make an airport like Blackpool profitable once again. Many constituents have written to me to say how distressed they are that one of the country’s first airports, with a fine proud heritage, has somehow fallen into obsolescence without anyone really seeming to take much notice, as though there was nothing that could be done. The local MPs here today have at least made the point that there is plenty that can be done, providing there is great optimism. If we can secure this precious enterprise zone, and if the local enterprise partnership steps up to the plate and delivers on its potential in terms of economic regeneration, Blackpool airport will once again reopen and have a profitable mix of routes that will make it sustainable in the long term. I urge all our constituents not to despair at this stage, but to hope that the many potential buyers out there can engage fruitfully with the other airlines and local councils.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate on the future of Blackpool airport. I commend him for his engagement with those who have been striving to secure a future for the airport.
	In recent years, increasing demand for commercial air travel has heightened the need to improve the capacity and efficiency of UK airports. This is absolutely essential to meet the Government’s commitment to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status. In our aviation policy framework published last year, we recognised the crucial role that regional airports play in providing airport capacity and the vital contribution they can make to the growth of their local economies. Indeed, I like to refer to them as local international airports, rather than just regional airports. The Government are therefore determined that the UK continues to benefit from the services that regional airports offer. We welcome the ambition many of them are showing through investing in their infrastructure, increasing accessibility and facilitating more services to more destinations. I have also been impressed by the efforts many airports are making to diversify into different activities, such as aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul, business aviation and other support services, and providing space for other, non-aviation businesses.
	I am aware of Blackpool airport’s proud history, which goes back as far as 1909 when the UK’s first official public flying meeting took place there. In the 1930s, the pioneering Railway Air Services operated commercial schedules to the Isle of Man, Manchester and Liverpool, with connections to other UK destinations including London. As RAF Squires Gate, the aerodrome had an illustrious history. During the second world war it served as a base for operational RAF coastal command squadrons
	patrolling the Irish sea and eastern Atlantic, and for specialist reconnaissance and technical training schools. The Ministry of Aircraft Production set up a huge shadow aircraft factory close to the aerodrome for Vickers Armstrong to manufacture and test more than 3,500 Wellington bombers between 1940 and 1945. Airline services resumed from 1946 and the airport enjoyed relatively steady commercial air operations for many years, allowing a lot of people in the Lancashire area to experience their very first foreign holiday. However, services and passenger numbers declined steadily from the 1970s onwards, as charter operators moved to other, larger airports.
	In recent years, Blackpool airport has struggled to attract and retain consistent air passenger services. However, like many other smaller airports, Blackpool airport has more strings to its bow, and also serves as an important base for a number of aviation-related support and maintenance businesses, as well as flying training schools and business and general aviation operators. In fact, Blackpool airport played a role in the 1983 general election campaign, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was spirited to the Fylde coast via the airport for one of her final election rallies. I was therefore very sorry to learn in August that Blackpool airport’s owner, Balfour Beatty, was putting the airport up for sale and that it would close in mid-October if no buyer came forward. Unfortunately, as we know, no buyer was forthcoming, and the airport’s owner issued a statement on 7 October confirming that the closure would go ahead on 15 October. The final commercial flight departed for the Isle of Man at 5 pm that day.
	I fully recognise concerns in the area about the impact that the airport’s closure could have on the local and regional economy, and the reduction in travel choice and opportunity. However, in the first instance this is essentially a commercial matter for the airport’s owner. As hon. Members will understand, airports in the UK and the airlines that use them operate in a competitive, commercial environment. The UK’s aviation sector is overwhelmingly in the private sector, and this Government support competition as an effective way to meet the interests of air passengers and other users. It is for individual airports to take decisions on commercial matters, which will of course include questions of services and future viability. Equally, airlines take similar commercial decisions in regard to the routes that they operate and from which airports. It is not open to the Government to compel airports or airlines to operate services.
	I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and other parliamentary colleagues from the area, from whom we have heard tonight, are involved in ongoing discussions to secure the future of the site and retain an aviation presence there, as well as working with local partners, including Blackpool council, to explore the potential for turning the airport into an enterprise zone. The airport continues to work with general aviation businesses and others based on the airport site to discuss options for them to remain there in the longer term. I warmly commend all those collaborative efforts and very much hope that a resolution can be achieved that will maintain aviation activity at the airport.
	Taking a wider view, the Government remain committed to rebalancing the economy and supporting regional development. Hon. Members will know that Lancashire’s local enterprise partnership was successful earlier this
	year in securing over £230 million from the Government’s local growth fund to support economic growth in the area. Let me restate our determination that the UK should continue to benefit from the contribution that regional airports can offer. The Chancellor recently announced that applications will now be allowed for start-up aid for new air routes from UK regional airports. To be eligible, airports must handle fewer than 5 million passengers per annum and meet new European Union state aid guidelines. The Department for Transport is working with the Treasury to determine how the funding process will operate in practice. We hope to be in a position to announce routes that can be funded in the new year.
	As hon. Members will also be aware, the independent Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, has been established to identify and recommend options to maintain this country’s status as an international hub for aviation. In preparing its interim report, the commission undertook a detailed assessment of the UK’s future aviation demand and connectivity requirements. The interim report, published last December, details a shortlist of long-term options for further study to increase airport capacity, along with recommendations for the short term to make the best use of our existing infrastructure. The commission also recognised that, in the short and medium term, the Government do not have effective levers to redistribute traffic to less congested airports, even if it were desirable to do so. All the shortlisted long-term options are now the subject of more detailed analysis and consultation by the commission. To protect the integrity of the process, the Government will not comment on any of the shortlisted options.
	I was asked a number of questions. First, I was asked what the Government can do to step in and prevent the liquidator from selling off the airport’s fixtures and fittings. I can report that the Insolvency Service has confirmed that Blackpool Airport Ltd entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation proceedings on 7 October and that a liquidator was appointed on 16 October. Matters concerning the disposal of the airport’s assets are for the airport’s owner and the appointed liquidator, and we heard that it would be six to eight weeks before a sale could proceed. The liquidator has a duty to ensure that the maximum levels of realisation from sales of assets are achieved to ensure the best returns to the creditors. In the meantime, there is an important window to explore other aviation-related options.
	We heard about other forms of aviation, particularly helicopters. I can comment on the North West Air Ambulance helicopter operations from Blackpool airport. The North West Air Ambulance charity has confirmed that its service will not be affected by the airport’s closure. The charity has confirmed publicly that whatever happens, it has a number of measures in place and that emergency services will not be affected. The airport continues, too, to work with other aviation support businesses and general aviation operators based at the airport site to discuss options for them to operate from the site in the longer term. I know that Bond Offshore Helicopters was mentioned in the debate.
	I appreciate that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) is the shadow aviation Minister, and I particularly value his contribution through correspondence. He is speaking as a Back Bencher in this debate, but I understand how important this issue is
	for him—not only locally as the local Member of Parliament, but nationally in respect of our overall regional airport policy. When it comes to bidders, it is important to make the best use of all the land on the site and to capitalise on the opportunity. The hon. Gentleman asked me to be a messenger to the Government, but I do not think he needs me to pass on the message, as I am sure his contribution to tonight’s debate will have gone out far and wide to all interested parties.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) rightly drew attention to the fact that passenger numbers, freight numbers and aircraft movements have declined and mentioned the success of Humberside in that regard. Yes, Humberside has opportunities for oil and gas, but one of the biggest problems for Blackpool by comparison with Humberside is that it is not quite so close to an airport that is as strong and competitive. My hon. Friend mentioned the
	fact that a KLM route from Schiphol will benefit to an extent from the distortion of air passenger duty, but I must point out that any questions about APD should properly be directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is interesting to note that what precipitated the problems at Manston was in many cases due to the fact that the KLM service was withdrawn.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde once again for securing this debate. I underline the fact that the Government are committed to improving the capacity and the efficiency of UK airports to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status. Although fully aware of the importance of regional airports in this, the Government are unable to intervene directly in Blackpool’s case, as it is ultimately the responsibility of the airport’s owner to determine whether or not it is commercially viable.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.